I don't hate the thoughts of the original poster on this thread, subject to the limitations Rockhoof helpfully came up with.


4) No presumption of tactics.  /target_lowest_health or whatever tells a healer how to heal.  He should determine who to heal on his own, or else we'll get demands for /target_fastest_declining_health, /target_most_hp, /target_lowest_mana, etc. too.  We have /target_nearest_player and /target_nearest_npc, /assist and other helpers like that, but the intent is to use these to map keys and reduce typing, not to mandate how the game is played.

The first thing to add is the delay command though, so a shortcut script can pause a bit while a spell is casting, imho.

- Venge

Thanks for the endorsement!  However, I'm not at all sure how you see /targetLowestHealth() is a presumption of tactics. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=presume.  For the link-following challenged, here's the relevant definition:
v. intr
...
2. To take unwarranted advantage of something; go beyond the proper limits: Don't presume on their hospitality.

I'm completely at a loss to understand how /targetLowestHealth() is substantially different from /targetParty1() or /targetParty2() or /targetPlayerByName("Foo").  The mechanics involved are exactly the same, merely the decision factor is different.  Using /targetParty1(), I'm shortcutting the mouse movements to target the first person in my party display, something easily determined by looking at the UI..  My decision is to target player 1.  Using /targetPlayerByName("Foo"), I'm shortcutting the mouse movements to target the person named in the function again, something easily determined by looking at the UI.  My decision is to target the player named Foo, provided he's within rage of the /target function.  Using /targetLowestHealth(), I'm shortcutting the mouse movements to target the person with lowest health, something easily determined by looking at the UI. My decision is to target the player with the health value closest to 0.0.  This is exactly the same as targeting a player by name or any other attribute.[1]

None of these functions make any decisions for the player.  The player has already made the decision, in advance, just like in every single script ever invented. 

Also, without being offensive (seriously!) I'd like to point out that the rest of your argument is a type of non causa pro causa fallacy known as the Slippery Slope.  Each and every function should be evaluated on it's own merits and a discussion of /targetLowestHealth() has no bearing on /targetFastestDecliningHealth() or any others.  Unless there is a casual relationship between another function and /targetPlayerLowestHealth(), additions really aren't germane to the discussion at hand.  I'm the son of a diplomat, I can't help seeing these things.

Consider:  The object of any and all functions should be to reduce keystrokes and allow for commonly made decisions to have a small level of (user initiated) automation.  In effect, you are compensating for the inherent clunkiness of the UI (inescapable for any game, no matter how well designed) and for the depradations inflicted upon all of us by that horrible monster (shhh!) Laaaag by allowing such things.



[1] Provided that the scripting system includes access to player attributes like Name, Mana and Health (a good thing) and provides conditionals like '<', '==' or '=<' (a very good thing), functions like /targetLowestHealth() are, in essence, aliases for more wordy strings of commands.  It's a trivial matter to compare the health attributes of all players in a party and simply select the player with the lowest value.  A student in his first day of a programming course could do the same.

Well, two points:

1. Vendors can, and do currently, provide basic items.  If you want better, you have to go adventuring.  Players aren't going to want vendor items for very long.  It is the vast majority of (currently upcoming) items that players are going to have to suffer inflation with, not 'vendor trash'.  Basic items are there to get you started and as such aren't worth much at all to more advanced players.  Those prices should remain static.  It's when you get player + non-vendor item interaction that you run into having to worry about inflation.  Sorry, I should have made that more clear.  I've done game design and have paid close attention to game economies that I haven't had a design influence on too. 

2. AHs aren't 'realistic'?  Bah!   I'd argue that they're more 'realistic' than NPC vendors standing around 24hrs a day with infinite amounts of cash waiting to buy stuff from you.  The AH is an NPC controlled business that provides a much needed service for players - who can't be online 24hrs a day - and makes it's 'profit' by charging a listing fee.  That's realism.  Consider: There are a couple of very rich NPCs running around who 'own' the auction house, making a killing off of providing their services to players who don't want to run a store, and who are willing to take a small risk in losing their listing fee if an item doesn't sell.  An AH is an enabler for players, and a fabulous way to take some cash flow out of the economy.  Again, player-run stores and an auction house are not mutually exclusive.  A player-run store doesn't have to worry about listing fees, it's a far more secure way to earn income, at the price of a smaller 'inventory' than what can be found at an AH.

Then again, there is such a thing as too much versimilitude, but that's a topic for another post.

While I understand that the reason here is only to get money out of the gamen through fees for saling and buying, I'm having one issue with this idea. That issue is that if you create an auction house where can make money whithout physically needing to be there, you could seriously damage player run stores and player-to-player roleplaying interactions. So a better alternative to this would be charging a fee for a merchanting license.

A player-run store would, I assume, need to be manned by players.  This is great if you're a player/store owner, but what if you're a buyer?  The other side of the coin isn't so rosy IMO.  Players need to be logged on to run player-owned stores.  Buyers are out of luck if you're not on.  It's a problem of availability.

If you allow a shopkeeper NPC to conduct business while you're logged off (a good source of outflux, but only for a limited number of players - namely those who like being shopkeepers), then why not just have an AH and be done with it?  Compare shop-keeper fees that affect a couple of dozen players vs. an AH that takes a brokerage cut of every transaction...  More money will be taken out of the economy via the AH than player run shops.

Secondly, there are LOTS of games that have both a clearing house and player-run shops.  They serve different purposes.  The AH is for fast moving bulk and the player run places generally have smaller, more expensive inventories - which can be filled using the AH.

Thirdly, an AH is role-playing, of the most subtle kind.  You can make a job out of playing the AH, it's called 'Commodity Trader' and it's a natural outgrowth of any clearing house type system. 

The point is that the two aren't mutually exclusive, but the AH provides advantages to the economy as a whole that player-run shops don't have. 

Quote

2. Inflation reduces the influx of new people.  ...  New players don't have this benefit.

I think that this does hold some truth but you're seeing inflation here as a very uniform force, according to your post inflation occurs on all items and is a bad thing. According to me inflation does not occur on all player-tradeable items due to NPC standards (unlimited supply keep their price low) and the simple knowledge of the buying power of new people.

Inflation both is and isn't a uniform force, depending on how you look at it.  From a macro-economic perspective, inflation IS a uniform force, because the average price has increased.  This is the perspective that I was taking.

Your individual shop is an absolutely perfect example of the micro-economic perspective of inflation.  Individual goods and services are going to be affected differently by inflation - following a geometric progression.  Low value items will tend to suffer deflation, low-medium value items are relatively unchanged, and anything worth more than that is where you actually see the inflation.

The problem is that it's the low value items that are the most numerous.  This means that it's the much smaller percentage of high value items that are actually driving the average price of all items up.  The only way that they can do this is by having their prices increase to values much, much higher than before the inflationary period was entered.  Think about it this way: 70% of items (the low-value stuff) actually decrease in price, but the average price has increased...

I have another question regarding the Death Realm.

If it's going to be much harder to escape from in the future, what happens when a relatively low-powered character is sent there?

The re-incarnation bit is pretty easy to explain, I'm more worried about the game-balance effects of having some poor schlub die and then not be able to get out.

I see a couple of ways to go with this:

1. The easy way: Characters of lesser power have an easier time leaving the death realm.  Being capable of leaving is a feat in and of itself worthy of some note, but the Death Realm itself does not hold as tightly to those lesser beings.

2. The hard way: The death realm is a realm in and of itself, on equal playability footing as Hydlaa.  This means there are trainers, and quests and shops and everything.  This has great potential for story and introducing PvP with a reason.  A whole new 'side' of player characters can be developed.  Doing quests in the Death Realm gives XP as normal, but also gives you 'Death Realm' reputation, meaning that, after a certain point, trainers, shop-keepers and other NPCs will have you listed as KoS.  Likewise completing quests in Hydlaa gives 'Life Realm' reputation, dictating that the vendors, shop-keepers and other NPCs will 'hate' you in the Death Realm.  This way, the more 'powerful' you are, the harder it is to exist in the realm opposite to you.  I'm not sure that a 'neutral' setting with both parties should be beneficial, basically if neither thinks very well of you, why should they offer you goods and services, then again, suitable penalties could be enacted to ensure that only a very few -and foolhardy- players would even WANT to go down that path.

This creates a three-sided aggresion map, which is ALWAYS more interesting than a duo-sided one.  I dunno if it's worth the effort required though.  To be honest, a lot of stuff could be copy-pasted, and there should be a multitude of quests that involve neither side anyways.

Then again, maybe there's a third option that I've missed.  Anyone with suggestions?

I'm fairly certain that this is the appropriate thread, but if it isn't, please move it.  I searched for similar threads in the past year but didn't find any specific discussions of the economy of Planeshift, but a rather lot of dicussions of the economy as pertains to this thing or that technique.

I've been a student of in-game economies since I discovered MUDs waaaay back in the 80's, and while I'm certainly not an expert, I like to think that I have some small insight into game economies that may not be obvious to the more casual student.  I also like to write essays, so be prepared for a long-ish post.

What is an ideal in game economy?  Simply put, an ideal economy requires no 'adjustment' by outside sources and all items have a relatively steady value based on their rarity and usefulness.  This, is a pipe-dream... can't happen, won't happen and will never happen as long as players are actors within an economy that allows trade between those actors.  Players and their reasons for things are simply too dynamic and chaotic (in the mathematical sense) to predict.  However, if players CAN'T trade items, then there is no effective economy, just players purchasing the 'needed' items from vendors while steadily accumulating more and more tria that has no real use.  Now, if this is the road that Planeshift wishes to take, then the rest of this post will be relatively useless.  So feel free to stop reading here.

Still with me?  Good.  Let's figure out what exactly a player's attributes are in an ideal economy:

1. A player will have, over the lifetime of the character, an average of 0 tria.  That's right.  Ideally, over time, players have NO money.  They earn money and then spend it on various goods (soulbound items, reagents, single or limited use items) and services (repairs, guild memberships, Auction House taxes, citizenship rights &ct).  Pretty amazing isn't it?  All money generated in game should, ideally, pass through player's hands and then be taken OUT of the economy, giving a player yet another reason to keep playing the game (aside from the primary purpose of any MMO, which is to interact with people who share your love of the fantastic)!

2. A player will provide economic lubrication for other players by generating cash and other tradeable resources.  While a player will, over time, have 0 tria, each player is going to infuse the economy with a certain amount of cash.  Tria influx ideally should equal tria outflux, but each additional player increases the size of the FLOW of that cash.  30 players interacting generate a small stream of resources, 3,000 generate a veritable flood.

Ok, so what's the problem?

The principle problem of game economies is MUD-flation, a term that comes from the observation that player-to-player prices rise (sometimes drastically and quickly) as the game becomes more 'mature'.  There are many, many processes that contribute to the inflationary pressures on a game economy that have no real world equivalent.  This wouldn't seem to be a problem, except that inflation does two nasty things to a game:

1. Inflation reduces the purchasing power of people.  There is a theoretical maximum amount of in-game cash that can be generated per hour, and most people will not even approach that maximum.  However, inflation is based primarily on the amount of money in a system and NOT on how 'efficient' people are at generating that money - efficient generation of cash just excaberates the situation.  If outflux doesn't match influx, prices rise without regard to how easy things are to aquire.

2. Inflation reduces the influx of new people.  THIS is the real problem.  With astronomical prices, the effort required by NEW players to make headway is proportionately astronomically higher.  Established actors on the economic stage got to experience the time BEFORE inflation and have had the time and opportunity to make adjustments.  New players don't have this benefit.

So, now that I've set the stage, here's my wishlist, it's fairly general and intended to generate thought and discussion, I'm no wizard and I don't have all the answers, nor am I a snake-oil salesman selling tonics and cure-alls.  Some of these ideas have been discussed before (and to death) but it is instructive to consider what the OVERALL interaction will generate for the play environment.

1. Force players to specialize.  Players that are good at absolutely everything have very little incentive to participate in an economy.

2. Assume that an average player will spend about three hours per week 'working' to earn the funds for things he wishes to aquire.  Decide what amount of tria/week we want the average person to be earning.  When people discover ways to earn more, work to bring those methods in line with the average.  This should NOT extend to player-player interactions, this is merely moving money around the economy and doesn't directly affect it.

2. Keep item upkeep costs OUT of the hands of players.  We WANT tria moving out of the economy and the item trade already does a good job of keeping money moving within it.  Repairs should make money disappear forever.

3. Initiate some form of Auction House (yes, I'm sure this has been dicussed before, but it's germaine to the post ), which takes a cut of each sale.  Players will naturally gravitate to using an AH because it means that they can 'make' money while not having to be physically there, and it gives developers an opportunity to take yet more tria out of the economy by charging a 'convienence fee'.  Players trading in and amongst themselves do not contribute to inflation, they're just moving money around that already exists.

4. Activities that cost money should be introduced into the game. Some examples:
  a. Quests that require farmed items are a great way to accomplish this within a heavy RP environment.  For example: create a 'City Guard' faction and a 'Thieve's Guild' faction that are always in need of supplies, with turn-in NPCs in various parts of the city and world.  They take donations of smelted ore and other items (common stuff is worth appreciably less than the rarer stuff, of course), to make and repair their stuff and for 'potions' and other various and sundry things.  In return, after a certain amount of 'effort' on the part of the player, new items can be gained, or prices can be reduced, or other benefits can be reaped, limited only by our imaginations.  The two factions can occasionally change their 'requirements', based on what's currently in abundance in the economy.  Which-ever faction gets the most turn-ins in a given section of the city affects how that zone looks.  If the 'Thieve's Guild' is 'winning', then that part of town steadily becomes darker, dingier and dirtyer, the opposite happens if the 'City Guard' is winning.
  b. Items that can only be aquired through quests that require the player to engage in both activities that don't directly generate income and to spend what money they have: go here, talk to this person, learn some history, come back, go kill this one special mob and loot this piece of it, bring that piece back, learn some more history, go to that expert over there, talk to him, learn some more history, aquire 10 of item X, 15 of item Y and 30 of item Z, go to this manufacturer, give them the mats, learn yet more history, get the prize.  This is the equivalent of the Heroic Quest that everyone is playing the game to find.  We all want to be heroes.

5. Activities that don't generate money should be introduced into the game.  This is a bit of a catch-all, but there should be things players can do to improve their characters that don't earn them cash or drops.  Earning points towards rewards that cannot be purchased with cash will reduce the influx of cash. 
  a.  A PvP arena where killing other players earns you points towards the title of 'Arena Master' - who gets some benefits that other players don't - is a good example of this.  Players may even have to choose between turning in those points to multiple different factions, each of whom gives different types of rewards.
 b.  Drops from mobs that can be used to turn in for quest rewards, once a certain level of reputation has been reached with the faction giving out those rewards.


The whole idea is to have MORE things to spend money on/spend time doing than ways to earn it.  As long as players generate money, there will never be a DEflation issue.

My two bits.

Frist Psot, so be relatively gentle!

IMO, there's a role for scripts even in a 3d MMO rpg.  I've been lurking here in the forums for a couple of weeks now, learning about the game (reading other's thoughts on something is a wholly different way of learning than experience, and couples nicely with it) and I have to say that I LOVE what is being done here.

Some thoughts on how scripting can enhance game-play:

1. Knowledge of the game mechanics enhances suspension of disbelief, a core to any role-playing game.  Once you know automatically what is and isn't possible, the impossible things are unconciously weeded out of your thought processes.  The prime example of this is that of a chess player considering moving a bishop.  Without thinking about it, only the diagonal directions are considered, because in the world of chess, bishops can only go diagonally.  Opening up scripting to players deepens their knowledge of the game.  This can only be a good thing.

2. Scripting encourages active development.  This is an open source project, and as such can use all the developers that it possibly can.  Being able to see the source code is great, but there are many people who would love to help, but don't think their knowledge of programming is sufficient.  Scripting does two things:

• Scripting allows people of lesser knowledge to help.  Scripting languages are invariably easier to code in than the parent executable.  There are strict limits on what actions can and cannot be performed and so on.
  
• Scripting teaches good programming practice.  Scripting allows an entry point into development.  By becoming familiar with scripting actions, when people DO eventually dive into the code and they see the function that was called when they executed an action, they have an inherent understanding of that function already.
• Scripting IS development.  Scripting is and always has been a mini-game within MMOs, from DiKU muds to the most modern incarnations like WoW and EQ2.  Allowing scripting enhances the game for everyone.  It shows exploitable holes in the code logic, it automates some of the boring, repetative tasks &ct.

3. Using the same scripting language for mobs and players makes for a more dynamic environment.  Players should not have the range of functions available to them that mobs have, of course; That is a given.  However, instead of having to recode (and then debug!) an entire executable, pulling mob actions out of the main program makes diagnosing and organising their actions and reactions MUCH easier.  Players familiar with the range of options available to them via scripting will be much better equipped to help create dynamic and interesting mobs than someone who just jumps in.

4. Scripting allows actions that would be possible in a 'real' world that are made difficult because of the game interface.  Attaching a /say command to a /cast command is a good thing, and enhances suspension of disbelief.  Script functions like /TargetLowestPlayerHealth() and /Assist(PlayerName) allow for things that would be automatic in a 'real' world environment.

These are all very good reasons for allowing scripting, and I understand that there are some people who are - justifiably - afraid of having an army of 'bots overwhelming what is meant to be individual players interacting.  There are some solutions to this issue, and some very good ones. 

1. Movement.  Movement should ALWAYS be under complete control of a PLAYER, never a script.  There should never be any movement functions available to a player.  You can't 'bot very well if you can't move.

2. Actions.  One hardware event, one action.  This one isn't has hard and fast as the above. Some functions available to scripts shouldn't be considered 'actions'.  For example: I like to play Wizardly types, and I love having incantations accompany my spells.  It is much more RP to have my 'toon shout 'Ignam belicosus, fiat LUX!' when casting a fireball than it is to just cast a regular old fireball.  Attaching a /say command to a /CastSpell("Fireball", 3) IS scripting, and is the type of scripting that should be encouraged.  Again, you're not 'botting if you have to keep pressing keys.

3. Initiation.  Scripts should ONLY be initiated by a hardware event.  This will stop the 'response' type script, which is NOT RP.  /away is enough for that, someone sending you a tell get's your /away message and you get a cute little /away flag on your 'toon so people don't think you're ignoring them - in some things, convienence SHOULD take precedence over immersion.  Again, you can't bot if you can't respond automatically to game input.

We've covered what scripts should not be able to do.  The next things give a vision of what they SHOULD be able to do:

1. Player and Mob Scope.  Scripts SHOULD be able to take into account the status of a player and that player's party and any actively engaged mobs.  An /assist script is a great example of this.  Bind a key or slot to /assist PlayerName.  You're making life EASIER for people with this script, because in a big fight, it can often be confusing as to which mob to attack.  Another good example is /target PlayerLowestHealth() followed by /CastSpell("Minor Heal", 2).  This is a Role-playing game and in real life there are many more stimuli available to people than within the confines of the game system.  Allowing someone to heal the person with the lowest health or keep one person /assist-ed is NOT a violation of a strict RP environment because the game mechanics are limited to what visual and audio details have been implemented.

2. GUI Scope.  Players are individuals and game designers are not omnipotent (so don't believe them when they say they are!  ).  Allowing scripts to manipulate the way the PLAYER interacts with her environment is a GOOD thing.  New artwork, extra buttons, better/more informative displays, &ct.  All of these things and more fall into the realm of scripting.  GUI changes are not violations of RP because they don't affect other players or the way the game is played.  In fact, they encourage RP.  A player who wants to play a dark, brooding, evil character can manipulate her GUI to reflect that by adding skulls and slime and shadowy figures to the artwork in and around her action buttons.  A player who wants to be the best, most efficient healer in the game, can manipulate her GUI for enhanced flexibility and efficency by moving healing buttons to where she can most easily reach them and place her simple, spare information displays directly in her line of sight.

Let's take a concrete example of this, using our Healer as an example.

Our healer, let's call her Grace, wishes to be as effective a healer as she can.  So, she creates - or downloads from someone else's creation - a GUI script that creates extra buttons joined to each party member's information display.  She doesn't go crazy with this, she just wants a few buttons on each one.  Then, she makes some simple scripts for each of her new buttons.  They look something like this:
/Target PartyPosition(1)
/say "Don't worry " + PartyPosition(1) + ", you've got a heal incoming!"
/CastSpell ("Minor Heal", 2) //Comment: Minor Heal, rank 2.
/TargetLastEnemy()She does this for PartyPosition(2) and PartyPosition(3) &ct.  Is this an RP violation?  Of course not!  All it does is simplify a rather repetive task that, in the real world would be a lot easier.  Grace WANTS to heal her party, but the interface can make that clunky sometimes.  By allowing Grace to attach buttons - and actions - to her party members, she simplifies the act of targetting the person she wants to heal, healing them and going back to the target she wants to destroy.  All of these things would be automatic in a 'real' world where these things are possible, but the interface will get in the way of that.

Continuing our example, let's say Grace has discovered a need for a 'Panic' button.  She puts a simple script in her main bar that looks something like this:
/TargetPlayerLowestHealth()
/CastSpell("Mega Heal", 5)
/say "The " + Assist() + " is attacking " + TargetPlayerLowestHealth() + " pull it off of them before they die!"
/TargetPlayerLowestHealth()
Again, in a 'real' world where this action was going on, all of these things would be automatic.  Scripts like these INCREASE versimilitude by allowing the player to designate oft repeated actions to a script that does exactly what they intend to do, but allows the interface to be shoved out of the way.  All of these things would be possible in a real world environment, but the interface prevents that.  People don't type as fast as they talk, and one can talk and DO something at the same time, can they not?

Anyhoo, taking a middle ground between no scripting and out and out 'botting is the best way to go in my opinion.  People LOVE to customize.  Look at the Hot Rod craze of the 50's and 60's, look at all the custom do-dads and gee-gaws available for customizing one's computer today...  As long as reasonable precautions are taken to prevent 'botting, scripting can, and should be encouraged.