Separate names with a comma.
Create an account today to engage in discussions and community events on the Rise of Agon forums.
Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by NonFactor, Feb 4, 2016.
it was shit on DFO, so i guess its a good point to be revamped in this new version.
I hope so.
That'll definitely be something we address.
We'll most likely be looking at the ability to add Houses into a trade window. Hovering over the house would detail information about it, such as add-ons, location, and total bind-spots.
We'll release specifics when we can.
Open beta will probably be the earliest time at which the addition of house trading functionality would be looked at as a possibility.
I always liked the functionality of house placement in UO where you could place a house anywhere pretty much outside of guard/city zones. Any chance of something like that being considered, rather than the fixed village points as they are now - I know this would change how villages are viewed but just a question?
no more middlemen for a 10 mil keep trade
I see middlemen as a sandbox feature. It's a playstyle someone could go into this launch wanting to play, it forces you to interact with more individuals within the game. Removing the little sandbox elements Darkfall had isn't the way to go.
I agree with this, I think the more sand you remove from the box the worse it is. Again UO had trusted middlemen and people made their virtual game living from this. I made my in game gold from buying and selling housing, it funded my PVP and added nothing but longevity and more sand to the pit.
Keep it interesting, you need many play styles and ways to keep the players interested to survive.
I don't see middlemen as sand in the box personally. Middlemen are only necessary because of flawed house trading mechanics in the first place.
I feel leaving out a good house trading mechanic would be an embarrassment to RoA in terms of quality. It was part of the original DFO that had the appearance of an incomplete system requiring players to perform workarounds to get past its limitations. That's not giving players sand, it's making players compensate for a nonsensical mechanic.
Yeah I don't see middleman being sandbox in this given scenario.
I honestly believe the devs didn't bother to code it in and couldn't be arsed doing it forever until DFUW.
I do like the middle man idea and that players could come up with that system as a compromise, but I still think a proper house trading system should be implemented.
Also, holdings being tradeable. That would be nice.
I like reading the salty forum posts after someone gets scammed. Leave it for the comedic value it brings.
You just want to ruin darkfall don't you carebear.
I agree. One of the big draws to DFO for me was reputation mattered. Name change all you want, people will find out who you are/were eventually and your reputation will follow you.
That being said, if they made house-trading more secure it wouldn't ruin the game for me.
I agree. That shouldn't be done, just like, in a similar way, I hope that auction houses never get implemented into the game.
Some guys here don't see the concept of middlemen as a sandbox element? Please explain.... I think you don't know what the term sandbox means...
I grew quite fond of the trade fairs that occurred in game. Hired muscle, the community interaction, the obvious trouble makers trying to crash the party. That shit just won't happen with a auction house. And lord the way some people became famous due to their house sellings/global spam or even making dirty money off of trade ganking becoming infamous or not. An auction house takes away pretty much all of those features.
Sure it makes all these a convenience, and all but it takes away the interaction with others and takes away part of that lawful/outlaw system that some people solely came to this game for.
Shut up dumbass
You could argue that this is a sandbox feature, though I would say it barely qualifies as such. I also believe it reduces potential player interaction rather than increases it, which is the opposite of what a sandbox feature in an MMO should be trying to achieve. I would say it's mud in the box. It's messy, you can play with it, but your sandbox would be better without it. This wasn't an intended sandbox feature, it was unintended and resulted from an unfinished system. Yes, middlemen were a good solution by the playerbase to compensate for the lack of a working house trade feature, but a functioning house trade system allows for some real sand in the box and encourages more player interaction, not less.
Let's take UO as a point of comparison as to the benefits of a working house trading feature. In the very early days of UO house trading was similar to Darkfall. It was based on trust between the two parties not to rip each other off, so middlemen had to be utilised to facilitate trade. People hated it, and the house trade market was barely existant as a result, just as Darkfalls housing system was largely criticized and had a tiny market. Fast forward to when secure house trading was implemented and a booming real estate market was born. People made millions of gold buying and selling property, many people made it their sole profession in the game. These sellers would advertise their property, hold house viewings with groups of people, then haggle with potential buyers to close a sale. These viewings were often broken up by groups of PKs being gated in by one of the "viewers", and it wasn't uncommon for fake sellers to bring people to their property simply to ambush them with their guild. I see this as a lot more sand in the box than having to employ a middleman to perform a basic function that a modern game should handle through sensible mechanics.
As I mentioned previously, the lack of a functioning system would be an embarrassment to RoA. An MMO with player housing launching in 2016 that lacks a sensible house trading feature? That's prime ammunition for the critics of this project. It's these kind of unpolished or non existent game mechanics that will turn people off the game. Just like the utterly broken alignment system in DFO, fixing this will be a good improvement that will ADD to the sand in the box, not take away from it.
Not to mention the fact that if the game is successful and grows in terms of population, utilizing middlemen becomes less and less practical. This was the problem in UO, it had a large population at the start, few middlemen could be trusted, it was troublesome to arrange a meeting between all three parties, and many middlemen turned out to be scammers. The result of this was a stagnant, barely existent and non-functional house trading system. The problems were fully rectified through the implementation of a working system that resulted in a booming industry encouraging a lot of player interaction.
That is why I support a sensible, functioning house trade system.
I think this isn't even subject to arguing... the fact that a player can play the role of a middleman instead of some block of code is by definition a sandbox feature. And no, it doesn't reduce player interactions, as by definition, player interactions means that players interact with each other (lol), and as far as I know, adding a player in the equation, the middleman, instead of a block of code increase the interaction between players. As you said it yourself, going against player interactions would be the opposite of what a sandbox feature in an MMO is... it's just that what you ask for would be accomplishing that... going against it... Also, whether it was intended or not by the creators of DFO doesn't really matter... as like many features in Darkfall, it was a beautiful accident.
Official UO servers also as a whole went from a true hardcore sandbox to a carebear land with shits like item insurance and a whole copy of the map with zero pvp allowed. I sure hope that if RoA are looking for ideas from UO, they are looking at features from the old school versions of it, not the ones that followed. Also, it is not true that Darkfall had a tiny market for house trading. Houses were traded all the time.
And what is the relation with what you just wrote and the subject of the conversation? Everything you just wrote can happen with or without a secure house trading system and with the use of a middleman. People did made millions of gold buying and selling properties in Darkfall. People did advertise their properties. The only thing such a system will change is replacing what the middleman do by an automated system, reducing the interaction between players and removing the profession of middleman. Everything else you just wrote can be done using both systems.
I don't see how it would be more of an embarrassment than not having for example an auction house. There are not many MMOs in 2016 that doesn't have an auction house, and many people could see it as an embarrassment, yet when you think about it, a traditional MMO auction house remove a lot of interactions between players. Trade fairs were amazing, and we probably wouldn't have seen any if there was an auction house in the game. Also, the game doesn't lack ways to trade houses, it's possible to trade house in many different ways, the difference is that the game give you options about how to do it. Do you trust the guy you are trading with or not? If not, you have different possibilities that would make it safer, one of which is hiring a middleman. That's a sandbox feature imo, that's what sandbox means, less structure, less rules, more possibilities, more player interactions. Maybe that was an accident that it ended being that way, but many accidents lead DFO to be the game we loved, many of which could be seen as "embarrassment" by the traditional MMO player that is used to play on carebear island with everything scripted and planned for him...
I cannot agree more about the alignment system... but it's not like the alignment system and the house trading system have any kind of relation at all or are in the same situation. The alignment system wasn't working in DFO, and an overhaul is indeed needed. And no, an automated system will not ADD sand in the box, it will REMOVE sand from it.
The big difference between UO and Darkfall is that in Darkfall there is politics. Your name, your reputation is worth a lot more in Darkfall. There are a lot more consequences. That is why in Darkfall the middlemen were, for the most part, well known traders, high ranked officers, alliance leaders, etc. People that had a lot of things to lose if they were to scam. The size of the population doesn't really make it a problem, I'm sure there would be plenty of trusted middlemen around, as it was already the case in DFO when it was up with a healthy population.
I still vote that the code be finished and allow a functional trading system be used. Let people middle man if they want.
Without a house trading feature, it makes no sense to be forced to give your house to someone else simply because the game fails to facilitate you being able to trade your own property/item
What if you had to middleman a trade of regs, or armour?
It's sandbox bro!
We all know fine well that AV were incapable of doing it themselves when making the game and we didnt see the feature until the new engine in Unholy Wars.
They fucked up.
It is subject for argument, as I said I concede you can consider it a sandbox element, but just barely. I wouldnt call it a beautiful accident, I call it bad or lazy design. Forcing your players to implement workarounds due to flawed design isn't my idea of a real sandbox feature, which is why I described it as mud rather than sand. I'm sure many half assed game designers would love your point of view however. It enables them to bodge job systems and throw them out under the guise that it's adding sand to their game. I explained why it leads to reduced player interaction, it stifles the business, reducing overall player interaction in this area rather than increasing it.
Secure house trading was introduced in UO years before the introduction of Trammel (carebear land for those who don't know). Most of the old UO player base consider T2a period as the golden age of UO. It had secure house trading, and it was a very well implemented system. Not once in all my 19 years of playing UO on many different servers have I heard someone suggest reverting back to the old insecure house system. I have seen and been involved in raging debates on tons of UO features, but have never seen an argument in favour of returning to the days of insecure house trading and middlemen. I very much disagree that there was a strong house market in Darkfall. In comparison to a UO server of comparable population it was miniscule.
It CAN happen, but it very rarely did, because the housing market was so miniscule that trading happened on a very small scale. My point is that by stimulating the market through a secure trading system you encourage a LOT more trading, thus these sort of things occurred far more frequently. I gave the example of UO in this respect. Before the secure house trading system, the housing market was very slow. Deals were made discreetly rather than openly and rarely occurred due to paranoia on the part of the seller that he was going to get ripped off. Once the secure trading system was implemented the market exploded. I think you strongly exaggerate the market in Darkfall. As I mentioned, in comparison to a UO server of comparable population it was a feeble market. It's stretching the truth by quite a large degree to suggest Darkfall had a flourishing, active housing market.
I personally despise auction houses, and don't see their exclusion as being an embarrassment in the slightest. The existence of a functional one to one trading system is more than acceptable, its a functioning system that works well and is familiar to players from many different MMOs. The lack of a secure trading system for very high value property however IS an embarrassment. It smacks of a lack of polish, a lack of care, and a lack, in my opinion, of common sense. How you can have a secure trading system for petty goods, but not your most valuable possession, is nonsensical.
Some people would say the alignment system was fine and would claim it added sand to the box. Got ganked in town by a ganker/blue healer team? Sandbox! It was a creative strategy! You should of been ready, its creating action, etc etc. I disagree. I think that functional systems are required to give the game a good standard of quality and prevent abuses of the system. I explained why I feel adding a secure system will add more sand to the box. It will increase the viability of the market and create more interaction for trade. When you remove barriers to trade (in this case the need to employ a middleman) you will see that trade flourish more readily, leading to more interactions between players, not less.
The size of the population is a factor because the more people there are, the more tedious becomes the process of arranging a middleman for a trade. I don't think it gives a good impression to people, especially newcomers, when they have to look on a website or something to find a list of reputable middlemen to do business with, then go through messaging those traders to find one who is online, and then arrange a time between the three parties that is convenient for all involved, simply to make a trade. Add the size of Darkfall map and it's relative lack of fast travel (in comparison to UO's recall/gate system for example) and this becomes even more of a hassle.
I just don't see the positive benefits of leaving an insecure house trading system in place. I feel its nonsensical, its a needless hassle, it impedes the market, and it gives critics ammunition to throw at the game as it stinks of a lack of polish. Someone reviewing the game isn't going to look kindly on this for example, as it just doesn't seem to make any sense and gives the impression that the feature has been missed altogether, which then gives the impression of careless design. There can be just as much, if not more player interaction with a secure house feature, so I don't see a good reason for not implementing one.
Call it what you want, it doesn't make it less of an sandbox element. And like I said, whether it was planned or not by the devs, and yes, it could very well be a bad or lazy design to start with, but the result of that, the appearance of middlemen, that is what is the beautiful accident. I am not saying that it is a sandbox feature in the sense that it was implemented that way, I am saying since middlemen started to exists in DFO, they became sandbox elements, they are the result of the lack of structure, lack of automation. I am in no way saying that it is good practice to bodge systems and make bad systems. What I am saying is that we know that middlemen can and will exists. The first time around, it took time for the first middleman to came out, but now we know they will be there. Instead of removing things from them, I would be tempted to give them more possible responsibilities, or at least not removing things from them. That is anti-sandbox. The devs should be looking into adding sandbox elements into the game, not removing some of the few ones it had (which is something UW managed to do perfectly... removing the few last features that made that game a "sandbox").
I never heard of anyone looking to buy a house not being able to get one because of the system in place, and I never heard of anyone looking to sell a house not being able to sell one either. Houses were traded all the time in Darkfall. I have owned like 10 different ones, never had any problems buying or selling any of these. The house market in Darkfall was accessible, it just had some risk to it, like everything else in the game. Was it harder to get one? Yes, of course. There were way more players than available houses, and yes, if you wanted it to be safe, you had to use a middlemen, and yes, sometimes it meant that you had to plan things and wait a few hours or days before getting what you want. And? Is that such a big deal? Are we gonna sacrifice one of the few sandbox element of the game for what could be interpreted as instant gratification?
Like I said in my previous post, you cannot really compare UO to Darkfall in all of their aspects, because they are different games with different systems in place. First of all, I'm sure that there were many people on the other side of the argument about that being implemented, as I'm sure there were plenty of people that liked that aspect of the game and the possibility to scam people (you make it look like everybody was happy with it...). And while T2A was imo the best era of UO, it doesn't mean that every single mechanics of that era were perfect. But anyway, as I said earlier, UO didn't have the same level of safe middlemen, as it was a really different game, there was no politics, no player cities to protect... the consequences of a "middleman" scamming and ganking people were pretty much nonexistant compared to Darkfall.
You have to stop comparing it to UO, and act as if that system alone is the reason why X and Y were different from one game to another. UO housing system was really different than the one in Darkfall. You could place houses on any flat terrain on the map, there were houses everywhere, a lot lot lot more houses per players than in Darkfall, and the awesome house customization and decoration, on top of the advantages of size versus amount of items an house can hold all participated in making the house market more active. It's not that one automated system alone that made it so it's more active than in Darkfall. There are less reasons to change houses in Darkfall, and also a lot less houses to trade to start with.
I don't see it as an embarrassement at all. It is one of the things that make Darkfall what it is. This is a game where you have to take a lot of risks, and being trade ganked is one of them. The big difference between the "petty goods" and houses is that you need to have the petty goods on you when you trade, and so you have to risk them... and it's not the case for the houses if implement what you want. The guy who is trading the money or the goods is taking the risk of losing it... what is the guy trading the house directly in the trade window risking exactly? Now, if you want the house trading to be working the same way as for every other items, how about they introduce house keys? You have to trade the key for gold/goods, but if you do end up putting yourself in a situation where you can get trade ganked, then you lose the key, and the guy who now possess the key have access to the house. Now, that's a sandbox feature, and houses now can be traded like other goods, and because of the higher level of risk, Trading with zero risk like it is in UW? That is not.
Well find me these people, because I have been there since EU launch and don't remember seeing anybody saying that the alignment system in Darkfall was fine, ever. The system is broken and always have been, and fixing it will not remove a sandbox element from the game (unless they completely change the principles of the game and add stuff like factions and make it so you can't attack other factions for example). Again, you didn't explained anything. You are misinterpreting what "adding sand to the box" means. Increasing interactions by making something safer and easier isn't adding sand to the box, and that is why I gave the example of the auction house. You could use the same exact argument you just gave ("When you remove barriers to trade (in this case the need to employ a middleman) you will see that trade flourish more readily, leading to more interactions between players, not less") to many other changes that are "anti-sandbox" and they would be true. Wouldn't being able to trade with anyone from anywhere in the world by right clicking their name in chat for example also accomplish that? Wouldn't making teleportation much easier and faster also satisfy that? Wouldn't having 100% safe zones like in UW also satisfy that? All of these things and many more would facilitate trading, it still doesn't make them good sandbox features. The added interaction of players that make middlemen a good sandbox element is the fact that a bloc of code is replaced by a job that can be done by a player. Not that more trades could happen because they are easier and risk free.
The bigger the population, the more trusted middlemen. It's not like there would be the same amount of middlemen in a 100 players game and a 10,000 players game. I also doubt that new comers will experience house trades in their first few weeks/months into the game, they will have time to adapt to the game first, to realize that it is a risk vs reward game, that you aren't safe anywhere, and that you can lose stuff... so I doubt that it would be that thing that really would make them think badly about the game (I think you really exaggerate that part, as a lot of people would find the principles of middlemen cool, specially crafters and traders, who could add that to their list of jobs to offer/source of revenue as their reputation grow).
Also, we were talking about player interactions earlier. Contacting middlemen? Check. Arranging a time between the 3 parties? Check. You want security? There it is, it involve another player instead of a robot.
Anyway, I won't spend more time arguing about it. My opinion is that it shouldn't be implemented in a way that would reduce the need of a middleman, as like other have said, this is one of the few sandbox elements of the game and I believe that the devs should work on adding sandbox elements and not removing them. So if you find ways to integrate houses in the trade window that wouldn't 100% remove the risk of losing it, then go for it. I gave an idea in that post with a key system, it could be a key, a contract or whatever, some physical object that you trade that give possession of the house to the player owning it (could access the house if the item is in his bank for example, but have to trade it to trade the house). I disagree if they don't implement a system like that, or any other system that would have similar effects.