At least for me. All it did was motivate me to script and bot farming it. Do other people view it as a positive addition to the game, or more a necessary evil than anything else?

I've never gotten a single commerce skill though!

I'm not the greatest player, but I feel competitive without the need to farm or bot in order to max out my edge points.

It's not that one can't be competitive w/o farming exploration/observation, because one most definitely can. In fact, one can be competitive without any edges at all.

The question is whether it should be possible to gain a game-play advantage (in the form of edge points) through an activity that is almost entirely rote. To the point that it can be scripted.

I'm pretty good about following the rules. But man...after the nth time walking around Thar-acacia looking at the same things (which I can never remember from character to character, meaning I have to re-read the room descriptions each time), I was sorely tempted to write a script.

Thar acacia has about 500 observation on offer, I've figured out you get 400 or so just from looking at the five captains and high council, so I stopped looking at all the intricately written mini-descs.

But isn't that exactly what the role command also does? People gain EP for utilizing it. And a role is not something that is required in order to actually RP.

Basically, if we start trying to remove things that can allow people to "gain a game-play advantage" through scripting there would be lots of things to fix. Skill mastery can be done through scripting, for an example.

Not just trying to be argumentative here, but I see some differences between those two and observation xp.

Yes you can role-play to an extent without entering a role, but your character exists in a vacuum. There's no context within which to evaluate his or her actions. So anyone observing the character, either mortal or immortal, has no way to know whether he's behaving consistently. This assumes the player actually has a backstory in mind and just hasn't written it up. That's a pretty generous assumption. Most people who don't enter roles don't even have a back story in mind.

I don't have a problem with edge points for roles because "having a role and updating it to reflect life events" actually adds to the role-playing experience. That's true for your first character or your hundredth. And this is different from observation / exploration xp, which doesn't add anything to my my "bottom line" in terms of enjoyment.

Skill practicing can be a churn, but with many skills it's possible to just rank up and do your thing and eventually the %s will go up on their own. So it's at least theoretically possible to dedicated skill practicing altogether (with certain classes). Also, I'd argue skill practicing is less "rote" than farming xp since it often involves combat. Obviously skills like hide and sneak are pretty easy to script.

I agree with some of your statements, but I cannot get behind the one that a role is necessary to RP well. Players do not have access to the roles of other players while they are alive, so its a generally moot point in terms of interactions with other PC. A lot of people who have really detailed roles struggle to actually perform in terms of "real RP."

Also, you can just rank up and get tons of obs/explore exp along the way too (just like skill mastery). The problem is that a lot like skill mastery, people feel the need to try and cram their observation and exploration stuff in super early on a character. And that's one of the reasons people view it as a chore. I think a lot of people would be surprised if they just let obs/explore come in naturally just how much they would get.

nt

>Not just trying to be argumentative here, but I see some
>differences between those two and observation xp.
>
>Yes you can role-play to an extent without entering a
>role, but your character exists in a vacuum. There's no
>context within which to evaluate his or her actions. So
>anyone observing the character, either mortal or immortal, has
>no way to know whether he's behaving consistently. This
>assumes the player actually has a backstory in mind and
>just hasn't written it up. That's a pretty generous
>assumption. Most people who don't enter roles don't even have
>a back story in mind.

Only a percentage of the roles that get written do a good job of this. In reality, many are narratives (some interesting, some not) that don't necessarily explain why a character is of a given sphere/class/cabal/align/ethos/etc. or provide the basis for why a character might behave in a way that reason and precedent would say is contrary to their score sheet, as it were.

I think it's also important to remember that having a role (which all characters, even those without a written role, do to some degree) and staying within some margin of that role's parameters (defined by class, align, etc.) is mandatory in CF and that is role-play in and of itself. But, a Paladin who goes around killing storm giants and coveting gold, regardless of whether they have no written role or an amazingly written role, and regardless of that written role's content, is not role-playing properly and there would be (in this case, IC) consequences.

So when we talk about role-play in the context of rewards, we may sometimes need to remind ourselves that role-playing is not reward-worthy, role-playing well is. It just so happens that it's easier for us to tell if you are role-playing well if you have a written role and when that written role contains the right things (note: right things, not necessarily written by a professional novelist), but it's not mandatory.

Lastly, I would point out that we want people to role-play well, elicit it from others, enjoy it, etc., but ultimately this is a RP game and one is not entitled to a cookie any or every time they do what is essentially following the rules or when they shoot for the stars and shine. We do our best to reward good RP as a means to encourage people and perpetuate an immersive and fun environment, but the core proposition of the game does not involve guaranteed feedback or validation. If a player cannot role-play and enjoy CF for the sake of it and instead can only find satisfaction in doing so when there is a carrot, that player is set up for disappointment and I refuse to feel bad about that or change CF because of them.

Ultra lastly, I apologize to Isildur for piling my speech on RP on top of my small paragraph response to his comment.

nt

My solution to this is removing or watering down most of the game-play advantage gained from things that can be scripted or that lend themselves to abuse / unintended consequences (e.g. rewards for PK tallying) and simply rely almost exclusively on the staff to reward the things we feel merit rewarding.

There are downsides to that too like bias (perceived or actual), inconsistent coverage throughout the day/week, inconsistency in the rewards themselves, inactivity, etc., but if I had to choose one or the other I would go with the human-driven solution every time.

Game-play rewards for observation are one of our attempts to offer both, and since we're simply not interested in a CF where the reward "ceiling" for a character we don't particularly feel adds a lot to the game besides an extra body (which does have value) is as high as that of a character who we know to be regularly interacting with other characters, playing out an interesting role, taking meaningful risks in PK, etc., I think ultimately most players would prefer the status quo to what I would prefer. At the very least, that's true of the players who bother to voice their opinions here. Or I'm nuts.

>we're simply not interested in a CF
>where the reward "ceiling" for a character we don't
>particularly feel adds a lot to the game besides an extra body
>(which does have value) is as high as that of a character who
>we know to be regularly interacting with other characters,
>playing out an interesting role, taking meaningful risks in
>PK, etc.

But isn't the reward ceiling in fact higher for those "high profile" or generally "interesting" characters, since they are likely to garner various rewards by doing all these things, e.g. edge points from imm xp, PKs, etc? Whereas the char which from the outside might just amount to an "extra body" must do without those, and just make do with whatever he can get by other "standard" means.

Also, judging a character's "worth" by just from the outside isn't really fair to its player. Even though an outside observer might think that a character doesn't really add a lot to the overall game, the player likely enjoys playing it, and e.g. getting edge points for character customization possibilities are adding to HIS fun. And who knows, as long as he keeps enjoying the game, he might well develop and produce more generally interesting characters in the future.

>>we're simply not interested in a CF
>>where the reward "ceiling" for a character we don't
>>particularly feel adds a lot to the game besides an extra
>body
>>(which does have value) is as high as that of a character
>who
>>we know to be regularly interacting with other characters,
>>playing out an interesting role, taking meaningful risks in
>>PK, etc.
>
>But isn't the reward ceiling in fact higher for those "high
>profile" or generally "interesting" characters, since they are
>likely to garner various rewards by doing all these things,
>e.g. edge points from imm xp, PKs, etc? Whereas the char which
>from the outside might just amount to an "extra body" must do
>without those, and just make do with whatever he can get by
>other "standard" means.

An unavoidable side-effect of providing mechanical rewards for things other than RP is that the characters who get rewarded for RP will presumably end up being rewarded for those other things too, and I guess I'm fine with that.

>Also, judging a character's "worth" by just from the outside
>isn't really fair to its player. Even though an outside
>observer might think that a character doesn't really add a lot
>to the overall game, the player likely enjoys playing it, and
>e.g. getting edge points for character customization
>possibilities are adding to HIS fun. And who knows, as long as
>he keeps enjoying the game, he might well develop and produce
>more generally interesting characters in the future.

Adding value to the game and individually enjoying the game are two different things and ultimately we want both. We just don't want the latter at the expensive of the former or at any expense. A player might enjoy or have "fun" doing any number of things that aren't acceptable or, at the very least, lead to consequences that said player won't find fun, and that's just too bad for them and it's how pretty much every multi-player game works.

To make it abundantly clear: a character does not have to exceed at CF according to my or our (the staff) criteria to add value to CF, but they do have to rise to our bar when it comes to role-play, player behavior, game rules, etc. Nobody is entitled to, for example, sexually harass other players simply because it contributes to "HIS fun". A less extreme example would be meeting the simple minimum requirement of staying in-character.

.

In general you want to reward the things you want more of (or, alternately, penalize their absence) and neither reward nor penalize things that are "neutral". Otherwise you create perverse incentives.

So you reward role entries, but only to a point. Leave off the cap and you create a weird dynamic where people feel compelled to add entry after entry after entry because doing so continues to give them game-play advantages. That's just one example.

The ultimate goal (I think) is for a character who "does CF right" to be reasonably well rewarded without ever feeling the need to "game" anything, whether it's role entries, observation xp, or something else. Just "doing CF right" should be enough to earn whatever mechanical advantages are deemed reasonable. Having a well-thought out role, consistently following it, creating enjoyable interactions with other characters, not being a douche when it comes to PK, etc.

I don't even think "doing CF right" necessarily includes accumulating lots of PKs. If anything that's probably in the "neutral" category. If I were going to reward PKs, it would probably be by helping PK heavy characters replace some of the CON they've lost by virtue of opting in to PK in the first place. That, or non-mechanical rewards. Titles, short desc, re-strung gear, etc.

nt

>In general you want to reward the things you want more of
> (or, alternately, penalize their absence) and neither reward
>nor penalize things that are "neutral". Otherwise you create
>perverse incentives.
>
>So you reward role entries, but only to a point. Leave off
>the cap and you create a weird dynamic where people feel
>compelled to add entry after entry after entry because doing
>so continues to give them game-play advantages. That's just
>one example.

We did this, at least partially, when we capped edge points from Role XP. I'm fine with Role XP itself being uncapped since it's a relatively poor incentive to "churn out" role chapters and there isn't much of a game-play advantage to be had from it besides some sporadic skill bumps.

>The ultimate goal (I think) is for a character who "does CF
>right" to be reasonably well rewarded without ever feeling the
>need to "game" anything, whether it's role entries,
>observation xp, or something else. Just "doing CF right"
>should be enough to earn whatever mechanical advantages are
>deemed reasonable. Having a well-thought out role,
>consistently following it, creating enjoyable interactions
>with other characters, not being a douche when it comes to PK,
>etc.

Our observation over the years has been that some players are going to "min/max", number-crunch, or game anything we let them. I suppose that's the nature of the beast. That said, I'm on record as being of the opinion that edges in particular became a runaway train at some point, and I've been slowly working to get it back on the tracks.

>I don't even think "doing CF right" necessarily includes
>accumulating lots of PKs. If anything that's probably in the
>"neutral" category. If I were going to reward PKs, it would
>probably be by helping PK heavy characters replace some of the
>CON they've lost by virtue of opting in to PK in the first
>place. That, or non-mechanical rewards. Titles, short desc,
>re-strung gear, etc.

We give out a fair amount of what we call "cosmetic" rewards. Some folks feel rewarded by those and others don't care. These include some of the things you mentioned as well as things like last names and improved warcries which, admittedly, have some very minor game-play advantage (enough to encourage people to try, which adds to the overall quality of the game). I completely agree with regards to PK and "doing CF right". I'm not sure I like the idea of giving people back CON for participating in PK since that disrupts the core proposition of fighting and dying (and we like permanent death), but that's probably moot since people hardly ever con die anyway.

EDIT: emoticons are stupid.

No one can hold Z's axes but you're doing a damn fine impression since you assumed responsibilities.

>We did this, at least partially, when we capped edge points
>from Role XP.

Oh, I know. It was just an example of a perverse incentive. One you've already corrected for.

>Our observation over the years has been that some players are
>going to "min/max", number-crunch, or game anything we let
>them. I suppose that's the nature of the beast.

I'm probably one of them, to be honest. But some things are more "gameable" than others. That's all I'm really saying.

>I'm not sure I like the idea of giving
>people back CON for participating in PK since that disrupts
>the core proposition of fighting and dying (and we like
>permanent death), but that's probably moot since people hardly
>ever con die anyway.

Was mostly mentioning it as an alternative to how game-play advantages are currently tied to PK numbers. Instead of being deadly earning you the ability to make yourself even more deadly, maybe you just get back some fraction of the CON you've lost from participating from PK instead of just avoiding everyone or sitting in the Inn.

Just a thought.

provided you can drop it anytime and say hi when you're transferred to RotD :)

And probably have an idea of what's happening in the rooms you're script-looking at. Like being able to tell Malikoth's story if you're caught running around Khargath's.

And by admitting that I just gave it the kiss of death.

I'm with Theerkla on this one. My suggestion wasn't to get rid of entirely, but change the cap(s) so that nobody feels the need to intentionally farm it.

It's not just farming though.

I've grouped when I otherwise wouldn't have to look around an area (glymarachs) and enjoyed it.

Never put tons of thought into it. It comes easily with everything else you do in the game. I can't fathom botting to get it.

Observation is one piece of the puzzle. It serves a number of purposes, even if some of them are small. Observation is a mechanic that we use to expose new skills as well as a factor in a handful of class abilities and NPC quests. It's also a source of experience and an intrinsic reward for genuine exploration and discovery (which can often involve other desirable behaviors like socialization and risk-taking).

I'm not 100% satisfied with how the system as a whole has played out, and I think I've made that clear in the past, but I certainly think your subject line is short-sighted and incorrect. So my answer is of course, no, it hasn't.

>Observation is a
>mechanic that we use to expose new skills as well as a factor
>in a handful of class abilities and NPC quests. It's also a
>source of experience and an intrinsic reward for genuine
>exploration and discovery (which can often involve other
>desirable behaviors like socialization and risk-taking).

IMO obs xp as a source of edge points is the only thing that ought to be removed (and replaced by another non-grind mechanic for edge points, and/or possibly adjusting edge costs).

Not much different from working on skills in my eyes.

Also even now I still notice new things.

I think it was intended to be a bonus that adds to the game, not something seen as a grind like working on skills.

Only if you ignore the other part of my post.

I don't view it as a grind so much as something that can be learned. It doesn't take me long to manually amass points.

I did actually read descriptions in areas, mostly in order to take note of objects to look at.

The problem is that I was scripting it at the same time, so that the next character I go in the area, it's script-looking.

But the initial inspection is definitely worth it, as you realize many links between areas and CF lore. Makes your own gaming experience much richer, that is if you have the memory strong enough to hold that info.