Enquirer Home Page | Twitter | Back to Improbable Island

 Forum Index > Legacy Forums: Season One > Season Two Planning Forum New Topic Post Reply
 Caches
 |  Printable Version
Hermein
 Friday, November 21 2008 @ 08:37 PM UTC (Read 2057 times)  
Forum Improbable Badass
Improbable Badass

Status: offline

Registered: 09/11/08
Posts: 126

I'm one of those folks who scavenges all the time but only goes to the workshop when I've just killed the drive, so that I can use the reqs as a jump-start for the next run. I'm hoping that the Scavenging system changes enough in Season Two to make that infeasible Wink

As a replacement, I was thinking about extending the idea of the hidden boxes of ciggies that CMJ dropped around the Island. Could we have a system whereby players could choose to leave req in a 'hidden' box somewhere, before they go after the Drive? I'd envision picking a square on the World Map and then choosing how much req to leave, probably with a fee either in req or cigs. Of course, I'd let any other player find and keep the req, so you'd have to choose an out-of-the-way square, and get back to it quickly after you hit the Drive. This would also encourage people to wander around more, in the hopes of kicking up some treasure.

The size of the box could be limited to something reasonable, so that it doesn't end up being a safe deposit box for huge fortunes between runs. There could also be a random chance that Thieving Midgets would find it while you were gone, or that the box would fall apart and you'd lose some of your deposit, or that there'd be a boss monster standing there when you came back for it - just to keep us on our toes Wink


 
Profile Email
Quote
CavemanJoe
 Tuesday, December 09 2008 @ 02:24 AM UTC  
Forum Admin
Admin

Status: offline

Registered: 02/24/08
Posts: 2281

Hmm. Maybe, if there was a fee in Cigarettes to use the box, and a high probability that it'd get nicked. Saving Req over DK's is generally Not A Good Thing, but with the risk of losing cigs, it might be worth trying out.


 
Profile Email Website
Quote
Hermein
 Tuesday, December 09 2008 @ 06:49 PM UTC  
Forum Improbable Badass
Improbable Badass

Status: offline

Registered: 09/11/08
Posts: 126

How about this: a new category at Sheila's that allows you to buy a couple of different-sized cache boxes. They could be priced at both req and cigs, in some ratio (I was thinking 2k req/1 cig). Once you buy one, you carry it around with you like any other equipment. It is always lost after a DK if you're silly enough to keep it on your person. But unlike your other gear, once you're in the World Map you have an action to drop the box, at which point it stays in that square.

Once the box is on the map, any player walking into that square triggers a check to see whether the Midgets have got there first, and if so the box just disappears. The odds of that happening could be fixed, or could increase with age until it's a certainty that the box has been stolen. If the box is still there the player that walks into that square automatically picks it up. They can hide it somewhere else, or go to Sheila's and sell it for the original value in req, with no cigs returned.

Or the whole process could take place out on the Map; it's a little less of a fit with the logic of the game, but perhaps it would make the coding easier? The backstory there could be that you're burying req, and putting the cigs in with it, but the damp in the jungle ruins the cigs before you dig them up Wink


 
Profile Email
Quote
Fodder Kid
 Tuesday, December 09 2008 @ 07:25 PM UTC  
Forum Contender
Contender

Status: offline

Registered: 10/31/08
Posts: 56

Not to be a parade urinater; what would stop someone from telling their friend to go to square blah bleh blah and get their box?

FK


 
Profile Email
Quote
crashtestpilot
 Tuesday, December 09 2008 @ 08:06 PM UTC  
Forum Improbable Badass
Improbable Badass

Status: offline

Registered: 10/29/08
Posts: 351

Let's get real.
We are told that saving req over DKs is Not A Good Thing.
But the point is everyone, or many, do it.
It can take the form of "Hey, buy crap at my vending machine for a fixed price," so that vast amounts of req get transferred, sometimes intra-clan, sometimes between a group of co-conspirators, and sometimes between alts.
I've done all three.
It works, it confers tangible benefits in-game, and (besides selfish motivations) it allows characters to progress as rapidly as they can, which, given the set-up in the HOF, offers bragging rights, plus ease of hunting.
So, what we have here is a theory about the game (req between dks is bad, mmm'kay), and the reality that the players are creating.
Granted, not all do it -- kudos to them for being purists, ethical, and admin-friendly.

My point is, this is a bit like the War on Drugs.
Half of America gets high illegally. Three quarters of America gets high legally (booze). AA says alcohol is an addiction. We have laws against drunk driving. We have MADD, the Highway Patrol, local and regional law enforcement, and oceans of legislation.

But we all know how Prohibition worked out.

So, to the conclusion. If you don't want req between drive kills, you need to cut off every method for players to interact economically.
Or you can ban anyone who passes large volumes of req.
Or you can get over the idea that passing req is bad.

I mean, seriously, there's a disconnect here. And it needs to be examined systematically, as well as from a programming perspective.

If one, as a programmer, enables certain paths of efficiency, it's silly to expect players to not beat those paths into hardpan.

Candidly, I think II suffers most when it exhibits LoGD legacy issues.
Okay, so you can level, kill the drive, recycle, start over.
That which enables the recycling to be more efficient, and have players lauded for things like: most DKs, most req, most ciggies, etc. will be the path chosen by players who are serious about placing themselves in the HoF.
For casual, social, or exploratory players (and I'm all three), it's less about HoF placement than avoiding Failboatage, which again, suggests any efficient path to arriving at: enough HPs to not die on riposte, enough req to buy top gear for my DK level, quest fulfillment, and req generation for city seizure on clan's behalf.

From a game design perspective, there's a Rubicon here: Either intra-player req exchange is killed off altogether, or transfer of req between players/alts/clans/gifting/whathaveyou needs to be acknowledged as a reality.

Right now there's "what you should do," that is completely undermined by capabilities at the software level.
It's hypocrisy, frankly.

From a game marketing perspective, there needs to be a colinear relationship between what players are capable of doing, and what they ought to do. Expecting a player to avoid paths of efficiency is unrealistic, non-sticky, and vaguely silly, and likely confusing to new, and even veteran players.

All best,

~CTP


 
Profile Email
Quote
Hermein
 Tuesday, December 09 2008 @ 08:09 PM UTC  
Forum Improbable Badass
Improbable Badass

Status: offline

Registered: 09/11/08
Posts: 126

Quote by: Fodder+Kid

Not to be a parade urinater; what would stop someone from telling their friend to go to square blah bleh blah and get their box?



Nothing, just like there's nothing to stop someone from giving their friend anything else from Sheila's (modulo the DK restrictions for certain items), or buying an overpriced piece of nic gum at their friend's vending machine. Neither of those works for recipients in Levels 1-4, so perhaps the caches shouldn't be available to those levels either. I'm of two minds with respect to that; I'd like to be able to pick up my cache right away and get back to it, but I can understand the desire to slow down gameplay a little bit too.

Of course using a box to gift reqs would be more of a gamble, because the box might be stolen, and it might be less attractive because they'd have to spend a bunch of cigs in order to buy the box in the first place. I suppose that if gifting goes away (I believe I saw that in the Suggestion Box) and if vending machines are changed (I seem to recall that as well), this might become a relatively attractive way to transfer req between players. In that case, CMJ will probably tell Sheila to stop selling them. . . or make the price really painful.


 
Profile Email
Quote
Count Sessine
 Tuesday, December 09 2008 @ 10:06 PM UTC  
Forum Moderator
Moderator

Status: offline

Registered: 08/16/08
Posts: 1402

I've got to say that CTP is right: there's a huge inconsistency in saying that saving reqs over DKs is Cheating, when the game allows players pathways to do it. It's exactly like trying to use social condemnation to stop PvP in unguarded dwellings even though it's allowed by the game -- except that this one's not player-initiated.

Either you invest enormous effort in trying to stop up every last loophole that allows retention... which means you must eliminate every method by which players can exchange reqs, and that includes gifting... and you might as well throw away the elephant gun... or you relax and admit that having an economy in your game that persists beyond DK is not inherently a bad thing.

Let's look at the fundamentals. What, after all, are the game purposes of stripping away all reqs at each DK?

I can see two:
1. It encourages 'altruism' by making reqs practically worthless just before DK.
2. It's a req sink, to keep the game from becoming awash with too many reqs leading to ridiculous inflation.

As for altruism, well, giving away something that's worthless to you isn't exactly altruism; it's more like garbage disposal. But it's still very nice for the recipient, so the game still needs easy mechanisms to help others, as well as incentives to encourage gifting from those who would not do it spontaneously.

(I note that since Heidi stopped being a must-visit for extra turns, the little bags of reqs one finds at the start of a New Day are getting exceedingly skimpy. People were quite willing to throw in a donation for her pool when they were there anyway to burn blue candles, but they're not making a lot of special trips to Kittania just for a 15-round 'unselfishness' buff. Moral: people will donate if you make it easy for them to do so.)

Keeping reqs in balance... I've said it before, but apparently it needs saying again. Inflation happens when too much currency in a system is chasing too few goods and services. There aren't enough things to spend reqs on. If you stop worrying about trying to confiscate all reqs at DK, yes, there will be more reqs building up, so you will need to provide substitute req sinks -- preferably most of them voluntary ones that contribute to fun.

What you need are some consumables -- no, lots of them -- most of which don't even have to translate into combat advantages.

Here's one: how about food? In real life everyone has to eat, every day. Hook a need to eat into the new stamina system you're writing, and you've got something very useful. You should be able to get enough food not to starve to death very cheaply, but rich people can throw lavish banquets that cost them thousands of reqs per plate, with huge guest lists. What do they get out of such a display? Status with their guests. That's a req sink, right there.

Entertainment could work the same way; I'm pretty sure the cross-Island Weathervane Players, for instance, would love to have a permanent theatre and would be willing to pay regular rent or a mortgage. They'd need to buy costumes, and stage settings. And people could buy tickets to performances. Or buy tickets for their friends. There could be expensive high-status seats where players' names could appear so they could be seen to be at the theatre, and the cheap standing-room-only pit. Improbable events could include vendors of hazelnuts and oranges, and other fancier snacks.

What else do people spend money on in real life? Fancying up their homes. Dwellings could be a huge req sink if you wanted. Furniture. Lighting. Servants. Swimming pools. New wings on mansions with more rooms.

Clans could be req sinks, too, if they had a clan req bank similar to the one for ciggies, one that any member could contribute to, but that could only be spent on, say, political control, or some other game-provided outlet.

...And for those penny-pinchers who don't want to spend on anything but would rather see the numbers build up... well, reqs sitting dormant in the bank or in their pockets might as well not exist. They aren't contributing to inflation until they're spent somewhere other than a game-provided req sink.


 
Profile Email
Quote
crashtestpilot
 Tuesday, December 09 2008 @ 10:55 PM UTC  
Forum Improbable Badass
Improbable Badass

Status: offline

Registered: 10/29/08
Posts: 351

I completely agree with everything Sessine has ever said or thought.
All of his recs are sound. Just giving them a bump, since I could/have not said it better.
~CTP


 
Profile Email
Quote
Epaphus
 Thursday, December 11 2008 @ 07:20 AM UTC  
Forum Improbable Badass
Improbable Badass

Status: offline

Registered: 05/31/08
Posts: 311

I likewise agree with Sessine, particularly the comments about consummables.


 
Profile Email
Quote
Bernard
 Friday, December 12 2008 @ 08:39 AM UTC  
Forum Improbable Badass
Improbable Badass

Status: offline

Registered: 10/26/08
Posts: 368

Have to agree with everything ever written. Ever.

I'd also like to see anything else I can spend on. I'm an unreformed consumer, and I'm not as interested in drive kills as once I was so if I could buy some interior lighting, or take-aways or something like that, I'd be more than happy.


 
Profile Email
Quote
Anonymous: Daychilde
 Monday, December 22 2008 @ 07:04 PM UTC  


I am forced to agree with everything as yet unwritten. Ever. In all of history-past and history-yet-to-come. (top THAT, next poster!) ;-)

Count me in as one who says: Req sinks are better than attempts at preventing req-transfer. The latter likely will never work as well as the former.

(meh, didn't realize I wasn't logged in until time to post... hate when I do that)


 
Quote
Max Dougwell
 Sunday, December 28 2008 @ 01:23 PM UTC  
Forum Badass
Badass

Status: offline

Registered: 08/28/08
Posts: 100

I am forced to agree with everything as yet unwritten. Ever. In all of history-past, history-yet-to-come and everything that was, has and will never be written no matter what.[/u] ...and a banana.
(Challenge met, Daychilde.)

I would LOVE more rec. sinks.The ownership of towns is working well at the moment, but its extremely impermanent for something that costs so much. I'd like ownership of stuff that I don't have to constantly fight over.


 
Profile Email
Quote
Bernard
 Sunday, December 28 2008 @ 08:18 PM UTC  
Forum Improbable Badass
Improbable Badass

Status: offline

Registered: 10/26/08
Posts: 368

Quote by: Max+Dougwell

I am forced to agree with everything as yet unwritten. Ever. In all of history-past, history-yet-to-come and everything that was, has and will never be written no matter what.[/u] ...and a banana.
(Challenge met, Daychilde.)

I would LOVE more rec. sinks.The ownership of towns is working well at the moment, but its extremely impermanent for something that costs so much. I'd like ownership of stuff that I don't have to constantly fight over.



Like interior lighting


 
Profile Email
Quote
Content generated in: 0.99 seconds
New Topic Post Reply



 All times are UTC. The time is now 09:53 PM.

Normal Topic Normal Topic
Locked Topic Locked Topic
Sticky Topic Sticky Topic
New Post New Post
Sticky Topic W/ New Post Sticky Topic W/ New Post
Locked Topic W/ New Post Locked Topic W/ New Post
View Anonymous Posts 
Anonymous users can post 
Filtered HTML Allowed 
Censored Content