2001-10-17: BlackDagger Interview with Vex
(Redirected from 2002-01-12: BlackDagger Interview with Vex)
BlackDagger Interview with Vex
| BlackDagger | Many people are concerned that the mass spawning of reagents and raw materials will (or already has had) have a negative impact on the player economy. What was your expectation of its effect on the economy, merchants, and craftsman? Did it have the effect you expected? |
| Vex | For reagents, yes. They are such a staple item needed by such a vast majority of players that allowing a small minority to effectively block their availability became unacceptable. If there was an alternative way to obtain reagents, or if they weren't so universally needed, this never would have been an issue. However, for all the other resources affected by the change (boards, hides, ingots, arrows, bolts), we recognize that the changes have had a huge, negative impact on resource gatherers. A fix is in the works. |
| BlackDagger | The UO economy seems to be glutted with gold right now. Are there plans to try to bring the economy back to previous levels or is this upward trend going to continue? |
| Vex | We do have some plans to bring equilibrium to the system. Bringing prices down to any particular level isn't really doable. There are too many variables in the equation for us to try to exert complete control over the in-game economy. We don't feel that reducing monster loot is the ideal solution, because it does nothing for stockpiles of gold already out there. Taxation isn't appropriate either -- it amounts to outright theft. Who wants to pay a penalty for success in a game? Big-ticket gold sinks are only partially successful. What we plan to do is find ways to attach recurring costs to new additions to the game. This type of gold sink would be very appealing to players or a built-in factor of game mechanics. In the former case, players would want to spend the gold for the benefit derived. In the latter case, the drain on the gold supply would have minimal impact on individual players (and not an outright tax), but collectively and over time, it would drain quite a lot of gold from the system. Ideally, shards will be able to reach a point at which gold exits the system at more or less the same rate it enters, creating equilibrium and halting inflation. |
| BlackDagger | In the past "duping" gold has been a problem. Is it still going on, or has this been solved? |
| Vex | [This question was skipped] |
| BlackDagger | Are we ever going to be able to lock down heads (or other tokens) from slain murderers? |
| Vex | Probably not. Doing certain things with human corpses is socially unacceptable in most parts of the world. And, UO now has a "Teen" rating for content. We have to carefully evaluate the gruesomeness factor when we mess with artwork and game systems. There is a fuzzy line out there that we have to tread carefully around. |
| BlackDagger | Will we ever have an interactive and viable ecology where, for example, if we kill all the sheep near the dragon's lair, he will get hungry and rampage through town seeking food? |
| Vex | To be honest, I believe something like that would be very low "bang for the buck". Such a deep simulation as a virtual ecology would take simply enormous amounts of design, development, and quality assurance time. The benefits almost definitely wouldn't be worth it. |
| Vex | Now, it's entirely possible that occurrences like the specific sheep-and-dragon example could be put into the game as mini-quests or integrated into a future scenario by the Ongoing Content team. We'd be reluctant to do town invasions without adequate warning, especially with such powerful critters as dragons. Generally, players expect to be safe in town. :) |
| BlackDagger | What kind of gold sinks does OSI have in store for us? |
| Vex | I can't give away anything specific at this time. We'll probably come up with some more big-ticket items, and we have some ideas for different kinds of gold sinks that would provide great benefit to players while, at the same time, siphoning gold steadily out of the system. |
| BlackDagger | Can you give us a hint about what the new "sub-skills" are all about (like masonry and glassblowing)? |
| Vex | I could, but Calandryll would call for my head on a platter. :) All will become clear as the scenario progresses. I will go ahead and address one concern: These new skill specializations are not whole skills in and ofthemselves. There will be a process and some limitations involved with characters learning the skill specializations, but they won't take skillpoints. You won't have to drop other skills in order to learn Glassblowing,for instance. |
| BlackDagger | With the alleged addition of new sub-skills (masonry, glassblowing), is it possible that OSI may implement and item enchantment sub-skill? |
| Vex | Nothing is impossible. Note that we already do have a basic form of item enchantment in the game, in the Faction system. We'd have to lay a lot of foundation before we could even start designing a more powerful and flexible system for enchanting items. We'd have to get the crafting system squared away, we'd have to get the magic system squared away, and we'd have to get the combat system squared away. A system of magic item creation would be integrated extensively with those other systems. Based on that, don't count on anything any time soon. It may happen, but right now it's not even a blip on long-range sensors. |
| BlackDagger | What was the behind-the-scenes reasoning behind the proposed new "Guaranteed Gain System"? |
| Vex | I wasn't involved in that at all. I had my head buried in the crafting system overhaul and some stuff for the next scenario. |
| BlackDagger | Does OSI have a goal for what they want to do to the Player Economy, and can you give us an idea of what that is (or why it's not a priority)? |
| Vex | Ultimately, the game has to be fun to play. It is our belief that in order to have fun, players have to be able to do what they want to do in the game (within reason), and also reasonably expect the right to do so with minimal interference from other players (also within reason). This is part of what motivated the increase in availability for reagents and the price caps -- the vast majority of players were being put out by a small minority of power shoppers. If reagents weren't so universally needed by so many people, or if there were alternative means of obtaining them when the shops were sold out, it would have been handled differently. So, basically, the staples that people need to get by in the game simply must be readily available to those who need them. |
| Vex | On the other hand, UO's economy is one of the key systems in the game, ultimately impacting the entire thing. People can play the game and never participate in combat, but everybody who seriously engages in combat can't do so without taking part in the economy. The in-game housing market is a great example of fiction mirroring reality. Properties are a limited commodity, but within that limited area is a whole spectrum of depth. UO house values, like in reality, are determined by their size, their location, and the state of the economy itself. The player blacksmith market demonstrates fierce competition, because while metal availability is basically unlimited, demand for arms and armor is limited. Even player-run vendors demonstrate quirks of true economies, like the need for middlemen. How many times have you seen an item purchased from one vendor show up on someone else's vendor at a higher price? |
| Vex | It is those aspects of the game that contribute to UO's uniqueness. We would be stupid to throw all of that away. That being said, it then behooves us to fix its problems while helping its successes to flourish. However, at the same time, we have to keep in mind that the players are in the game to have fun. What we do has to expand options, not eliminate them; and we definitely have to be careful before we go imposing on players. |
| Vex | Specifically? I could talk about some ideas on a theoretical level, or even get specific about ideas we've tossed around the office -- but I simply can't create (or destroy) any expectations until we have a definite schedule for something specific we want to do. We want to change the game's economy so that the goods players need are readily available at a fair price, without putting out the resource gatherers and creators of finished goods. At the same time, we want to have the system siphon gold out of the system in a subtle, fair, and consistent way, allowing the system to reach equilibrium. Furthermore, we recognize the need for more ultra-cool big-ticket items -- because what's a pile of gold if there's nothing to spend it on? We have goals, we have ideas, but we can't be more specific than that at this juncture. :) |
| BlackDagger | Does OSI plan on introducing new craftable weapons and armor soon, and how often? |
| Vex | That is a definite possibility, both in terms of the scenarios and in general live development. No details are available at this time. |
| BlackDagger | Why didn't OSI allow the "bartender" NPC the ability to sell different inventories (like blacksmith, or fletcher)? Does it look like that will be added in the future? |
| *the editor grabs some of Vex's teammates for this one* | |
| Gromm | The barkeep was only meant to be an enhancement to roleplay, not to give an in-game advantage or convenience to house owners. If we had placed different inventories on the barkeep for each of the different titles, some people would never have to leave their houses. In a single player game that's fine, but in a massively multiplayer game, we don't want to create items that would prevent people from interacting with the world. We still want people going into towns, etc. The selling of drinks was really only put in as a little fun extra feature. |
| Calandryll | We did not want the barkeeper to be a replacement for the NPC shopkeepers. They are meant to be a tool to facilitate player-run quests. Adding in some purchasable items in the barkeeper was more of a role-playing tool (ale, some food, etc) than something meant to make purchasing supplies more convenient. |
References:
