Topic

The Pesky Projects are the problem, not the tree poison

All the conversation about tree poison and how it should work is driving me nuts. The core problem is not the mechanics of the balance of tree poison. (There is a minor problem there, not a major one.) The core problem is that projects are poorly designed. For example, if there were no projects, there is no use for dirt.

(It did seem that Briar was killing trees for sport, regardless of what the story is now, but that's a separate problem from the tree-lumber-dirt tension.)

Some of the many problems with projects:
1. Massive amounts of raw (and rare) materials are required. (As others have mentioned, this didn't used to be the case.)
2. Project contributors are competing with each other.

There are many problems with projects, but I am trying to avoid writing a lengthy post here, and I think these are the two primary problems. Some thoughts about them:
1. Getting rewarded for dumping in things seems dopey, unless they are the results of layers of production. (E.g., cooked foods would be way better; ingots are only slightly better because few raw materials go in.)
2. The emphasis on rare materials is creating all sorts of tension among players. So cut it out.
3. Why the hell are we competing in what's supposed to be collaborative work? Take the competition out of it.
4. I wonder if projects should require specific levels of skills BUT NO HIGHER, e.g., Cheffery 1, but if you have Cheffery 2 or Cheffery 3, you can't help with that piece.
5. Hah, and I am now imagining a scavenger hunt sort of thing. Instead of needing 500 dirts, you need one each of 200 different things. In order to participate, you have to complete the scavenger hunt.

I hate projects, and think they should be redesigned from the ground up. But those are some brief thoughts.

Posted 20 months ago by clare Subscriber! | Permalink

Replies

  • without projects this game would be pointless as an online game, its 1 of th very few *multiplayer* parts of the game if you can class it as that... and limiting who can help because of skills would limit this even more
    Posted 20 months ago by Hootaholic Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I find just getting to a new project is a trial...Wish we could teleport now...
    Posted 20 months ago by napabeth Subscriber! | Permalink
  • clare, I disagree with you on 100% of your points.

    1) I think projects should have more, like an extra decimal place more, requirements... and need more ultra-rare items. Street Projects are supposed to be a 'community effort' and need expanded beyond the scope of what one determined person (solo playing hoarder) could achieve alone.

    2) I think they spawn too quickly, too many of them, and too close together. Currently the process is, get through the work phase wait, do more, wait, teleport when the new street is done (if you've wandered away), and immediately start on the next project.

    3) Competing projects forces you to make a choice. At some point we're all going to have to make choices... especially when the world is much bigger and there are projects on opposite sides of the world.

    4) Street Projects are *not* the primary reason Glitch exists, but the way they're currently being handled leads a lot of new people to believe they are the 'goal' or the 'win'.

    Overall.... I think people just don't 'get it'. It feels like all of the suggestions above are geared to even more solo-style play, and to discourage group activities. 

    P.S.: The project requirements are 'dumber' than they were even 6 weeks ago... when we first came in after the re-set the projects were off-limits to all but a few who set their skill paths to follow the project needs. The developers tweaked them down to allow more people to be included. All this 'conflict' is because there are 10x more contributers to Street Projects than there were before and the 'community' is trying to figure out how to compensate.
    Posted 20 months ago by Travinara Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Some good ideas there, clare, although I don't agree with all of them, but it's good for as many of us to get on the table our thoughts as possible as to how to improve this busted aspect of the game (and I offered my own thoughts up in some other topic specifically about projects - will retrieve that link for this post).

    I do think that when projects get tweaked - however they get tweaked - there needs to first be an underlying philosophy for the projects.  Devs don't need to tell us what it is (although that'd be cool), but I do know that in reading previous player suggestions, it's obvious that there are different philosophies that drive different suggestions... it's clear that simply tweaking to tweak won't be useful without there being a core philosophy.  In fact, it will be damaging, because it will introduce unintended consequences (like clear cutting) that then need to be 'fixed'.  If the project development were driven by a philosophy, then less tweaking would likely result, freeing up dev resources to build out more cool things rather than constantly tweaking an algorithm (and yes, I do have 'interestingness' in the back of my mind!).

    Examples:

    "Projects should take a long time to complete."
    If this is the underlying wish by the devs, then simply upping the requirements to 500 earth won't do it, as we've seen.  500 earth is high, but not high enough.  50,000 earth would be 'better' than 500 in the sense that it's more likely that diverse people will add to the pile over a longer period of time.  IMHO, actually, this would actually lead to massive scale pillaging of forests on every street because player focus is to 'get it done as quickly as possible'.   If the goal of the devs is to slow down projects, I'd look elsewhere than high numbers to achieve this.... like longer cooling off periods, far more types of items needed, or barring a player from contributing more than 1 type of item to a project.

    "Projects should have a random serendipity of players involved"
    If this is a dev goal, then the current state of whoever gets there first with the goods and whatever skills they have is working just fine.  But note that this is a different goal than "Encourage maximum player coordination in-game".  In a smaller world, we naturally coordinated projects.  Now that the world is larger, coordination is much more difficult.  This is where the concept of sign-ups and project channels arise as suggestions by players, since some of us have an underlying philosophy in which communal action triggers more of a play rush than going it alone or being competitive to beat the crowd.

    So, rather than offer yet more specific suggestions as to how to revamp projects (which needs to be done - the current model feels broken), I'd like to encourage the devs to ask themselves what they'd like projects to accomplish in terms of an underlying philosophy, then tweak to that criteria. If that's already happening behind the scenes - yay! ;-)

    ---
    edited to add link to my previous post re projects, which includes a response from Stoot (and wow, was that hard to find):
    beta.glitch.com/forum/gener...
    Posted 20 months ago by zeeberk Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Lt: Do note what Clare is and isn't saying.

    What she's not saying: Projects should be canceled.

    What she is saying: The game mechanics around projects should be redesigned, for various reasons given, etc ...

    I'm a fairly new Glitch player, so I don't know to what degree this is true, but from a reading of the forums and the encyclopedia and the Glitch Strategy Guide, I'd say that Clare does have a point. (I even had to ask for an explanation of Street Projects in the FAQ group!)

    I'm fairly confident the devs would correct some of these problems. Perhaps:

    1) Limit number of contributors to a project, or have the ability to add/kick people to and from the project? Then this would be like a 'group quest'.

    2) Vary the different types of projects, or split it into more stages, each with separate signup processes?

    I'm sure we can think of more suggestions/fixes as we go along.
    Posted 20 months ago by Dienasty Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I agree with Clare, in that how a project development happens needs to change a bit. Also found that for all the 'love' that people have been displaying - when I happened to ask in the Global chat for lumps of earth etc. others willingly jumped in and bought these items without so much as a thank you back in the global chat. It annoyed me a little to see that while one is expected to be 'good' there are many others who aren't nice at all.
    Posted 20 months ago by mickey Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I agree that projects are broken.  And I agree with a lot of the suggestions above about what might help them.

    What are the things that make the projects a pain?  

    First, there's the distance between them and the places you have to go to get them.  Which means people either hoard items then dump them on one project, or auction items but get no credit/payoff for it (sometimes not even thanks), or don't bother.


    Then there's the artificial demand created for raw materials like planks and earth.  And we all know where that got us.


    Then there's the sense of urgency and the speed with which projects are finished and re-spawned, which makes some of us lose interest.


    Then there's the competitive aspect, which is bound to make people camp out at projects, hoard, or do things like mass destruction of forests in order to "win."


    So what can be done?


    1. Take out the competitive aspect.

    2. Maybe allow people to donate to a project remotely?  For example, how many times a day do we see someone with that mining quest "donate 10 ingots to a project" asking in the chat "where do I find a project" and complaining that when they got there it was already finished? How many of us have had that experience?
    3. Make lines of communication clearer so that you don't have to travel all the way to a project just to find out what's needed.

    4. For the scarcer items, maybe make it impossible for an individual to collect them.  Like the *shudder* peat quest.  Except make the logistics actually work (unlike the peat quest).  So, barnacles can only be scraped by a minimum of three people at a time?  But have some incentive for solo players - so some items that can be supplied by one person and others that can't.

    5. I like the ideas up-thread to limit the contributions by one person (only if the competition is removed), or by skill level, to broaden the opportunities for people at different levels.


    But for me, I'm afraid that all this is part of a bigger problem.  For higher level players, what else is there to do? Skills are taking so long to learn that you wonder if there's any point. Quests are drying up.  You can earn money easily but have nothing to spend it on.  You collect raw materials but have nothing to do with them.  Frankly, if I'm reduced to logging on and spending half an hour collecting piggy poop which I then have to wait for several days to do anything with, it's going to get stale pretty quickly.  
    Posted 20 months ago by Tradescantia Subscriber! | Permalink
  • (off topic but IMO really important)

    @Stoot and crewe: you are sooooo frickin' lucky to have this level of analysis and problem solving for TS and this game. What a gift!!! I know you appreciate it and all, but this here thread really is getting to some key issues around fundamentals that is worth at least a free wardrobe for these players. Such a smart group of folks. #justsayin
    Posted 20 months ago by Mac Rapalicious Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I think that the idea of companies from another thread could be good. Players could be given the opportunity to join a construction company. If they choose to join then they can be sent quests by the rock and you can accept or decline. the quest would tell the individual how much and which items they need to contribute for their part and how long they have to achieve the task. If they dont make it in the time limit then then the requirement can be passed onto others. 

    If you were able to see a list of who else was working on your project then you can still work together gathering and trading materials but it would prevent projects being completed by the same people time and time again and would help newer players integrate into the community side without desperately running around with 10 metal ingots!   


    This way players can be rewarded for achieving their part, maybe a trophy for completing 5 company quests in the time limit. 


    I think its really important that projects don't turn into clicks, which does happen to some extent now. Maybe if your are assigned to a project you can have a free teleport to work once per game day! 
    Posted 20 months ago by Sherbert Subscriber! | Permalink
  • "For higher level players, what else is there to do?"

    Exactly!  I finished every quest I was given.  Some of the skills I've learned don't seem to have associated quests.  It'll be another four and a half days before I finish learning Tinkering V, which will probably provide me with one more quest, but what else should I be doing in the mean time?  I like the projects.  "Hoarding" has become a dirty word... but isn't that a huge part of the game, even without the projects?

    Also, what's wrong with competition?  Sometimes, if I happen to have the right items with me, or can produce them quickly enough, I get a piece of a street trophy.  Yay!  Sometimes, I can only contribute actions, but I still get a little reward, and hang out with other players for a bit.  Fun!  At the end, we get to see the new street for the first time.  This is a bit less fun lately, as others have pointed out, because a lot of the streets look so similar to each other, but it's still enjoyable. 
    Posted 20 months ago by glum pudding Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I think the projects are great Gives us something to work towards---- Ive played a game with similar idea's minus the fact that we got to open new streets-- getting that we can open new streets is amazing.
    Posted 20 months ago by blackwidow Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I feel the same about 'things to do later', but don't see it as a reason to tune Street Projects so they're *easier* for higher lever players. I freely admit I'm a happy hoarder, but argue repeatedly for the Street Projects to be *more* difficult. I spent the entire last two tests with no Quest, but still managed to keep productive and busy. From Easter Egg hunting and hiding to just wandering the world, it was fun! 

    Seems to me making the Street Projects easier and more exclusive defeats the 'higher level player needs something to do' argument... so after you get all your trophies and have built two dozen streets solo, what's the plan? I love the self-driven competition, and there's still a challenge in completing a Street Project. Broken as they are, I think making them more exclusive will only make the problem worse.
    Posted 20 months ago by Travinara Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I would like to see other types of projects other than street building projects.  Chemistry or other projects to make scientific breakthroughs for new items, tools, etc.

    Thanks Clare for getting people thinking on improvements!
    Posted 20 months ago by Gruff McGruff Subscriber! | Permalink
  • +1 @ Gruff McGruff

    Would be nice to spend those chemistry items on something. Maybe even towards learning a skill faster? I know you can donate to a giant and all, but still...
    Posted 20 months ago by geoffreak Subscriber! | Permalink
  • clare: i'd love you to revisit this after we've had the game up and running for a few more weeks post reset. It is my feeling that many of the resource issues still extend from (a) players focused on quests while relearning skills and thus not doing general resource gathering and (b) no time for stockpiles to have built up.

    the last few weeks of the previous test run there was the occation that some project was really short on barnacles or something sort-of newly introduced, but the "world" had a fair bit of other materials - planks, rocks, dirt, loam - in the 'economy'.

    I'm curious to see myself how things appear down the line. if the current crazy pace of earth sucking projects mean 1 or 2 resources never have a supply built up, or if things settle into more of an equilibrium.
    Posted 20 months ago by Another Chris Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I'm definitely on the side of projects being harder: more resources need... and more variety. I have no idea if there is an idea of using projects to help balance available resources - Oh, looks like people have a whole mess of peat hoarded. Time to require a whole MESS of peat in projects for a bit. But I do think making it take LONGER to complete projects would help lessen the panic of each project. Newer players would be able to give something, higher level players would be able to dump large amounts.
    (And, potentially, after you have completed all the project trophies, you should be removed for the top 5 list... so we don't run into a situation that a certain group of players just lock it down.)
    Posted 20 months ago by Lord Bacon-o Subscriber! | Permalink
  • i would like to hear clare's thoughts about a ground up redesign of projects.

    going to address clare's points one at a time.

    1. Getting rewarded for dumping in things seems dopey, unless they are the results of layers of production. (E.g., cooked foods would be way better; ingots are only slightly better because few raw materials go in.)

    both agree and disagree, sort of. the way i'd like to see it is that the first project phase is ALL raw materials. planks, earth, chunks, etc.

    on the other hand, the next two phases [or more] shouldn't have ANY raw materials.

    that would make things one third raw items, two thirds complex items. i think this makes for a good balance, and would make it very difficult to "win" a project through raw materials alone.

    2. The emphasis on rare materials is creating all sorts of tension among players. So cut it out.

    agree. if you're talking about dirt, i think the amount of dirt needed should be reduced if anything. requiring supermassive quantities will only promote clear-cutting. the way to prevent this is to reduce the numbers needed, not increase it. so i agree in that the "emphasis" needs to be reduced.

    i think travinara is off base here, tho only where it comes to "rare" items like dirt where harvesting has a large effect on other players. for most other things i agree that the volume can be dramatically increased .. but ONLY if the resulting street is remarkable and totally worth the effort. if this means having fewer streets overall, i'm cool with that.

    3. Why the hell are we competing in what's supposed to be collaborative work? Take the competition out of it.

    agree. agree. agree. the competition thing is all kinds of unnecessary, decreases the social component and plain 'ol isn't fun. when you're competing, communication is a liability. the game needs more communication, not less. i'm unsure why the devs brought in the competitive component .. it wasn't like there was a lack of interest to work on projects without it.


    4. I wonder if projects should require specific levels of skills BUT NO HIGHER, e.g., Cheffery 1, but if you have Cheffery 2 or Cheffery 3, you can't help with that piece.

    disagree. higher level players need something to do, and excluding them from projects isn't the way to do it. also with the upcoming ability to "unlearn" skills, i could see this being cheated. also very vulnerable to manipulation via "dummy accounts"


    5. Hah, and I am now imagining a scavenger hunt sort of thing. Instead of needing 500 dirts, you need one each of 200 different things. In order to participate, you have to complete the scavenger hunt.

    agree. i think this is an awesome idea, actually. only problem is that it would probably break the current projects UI. sounds like a ton of fun.


    -------

    so, Clare, i agree with 3.5 out of 5 of your ideas. is that good? i think you could get me up to 4 out of 5. possibly. i just think raw stuff should be heavily involved in the first construction phase, primarily for thematic reasons.
    Posted 20 months ago by striatic Subscriber! | Permalink
  • i'm still really confused why we aren't making blocks for projects right now
    Posted 20 months ago by proxy metafax Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I actually don't consider dirt ultra-rare, but I do believe it has become rare due to player behaviors. I'm thinking more the moonstone and crystal requirements, the complicated cocktails... I'd even love to see Giant emblems required (be a good way to determine what vendor goes on that street). I think there does need to be a truly difficult component to every street project.... but the volume per street should reflect the difficulty in obtaining the objects... 10k beryl is a good number, so is 25 moonstones.
    Posted 20 months ago by Travinara Subscriber! | Permalink
  • dirt has been rare in the past. without clear-cutting it *is* rare.

    we can only get around the rareness by way of the multi-dig hack, or through massive deforestation.

    still. rare. due to pre-multi-dig complaints about it.

    i agree with there being at least one super difficult component to every single street project. i don't think more than one is a good idea though. too much work, too little reward.

    but .. for opening up truly awesome, core streets? yeah. should have huge requirements. maybe even weeks of work. the resulting street should be pretty amazing though. something like a properly open and useable tower complex or similar.
    Posted 20 months ago by striatic Subscriber! | Permalink
  • What if a new dynamic was introduced that only let groups work as teams to compete to be the first to "unlock" projects.  It would create another level of community because cooperation would be necessary to reach a goal.  Maybe the group would get to name the street or maybe the group would gain one *club house* point per project won which could ultimately be spent to buy a "clubhouse" with multi-player accessibility.  
    Or something. 
    Posted 20 months ago by Briar Subscriber! | Permalink
  • 4. I wonder if projects should require specific levels of skills BUT NO HIGHER, e.g., Cheffery 1, but if you have Cheffery 2 or Cheffery 3, you can't help with that piece.

    disagree. higher level players need something to do, and excluding them from projects isn't the way to do it. 





    Yeah, I didn't say that right. I meant that *some* of the needed skills would be specified as for lower-level players, not all of them. Maybe straight-up level, rather than skill level, come to think of it.




    Also, I agree with you on 1, if the materials being dumped in are used to make the things in the second phase. Cherries so lemons can be made, etc.
    Posted 20 months ago by clare Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Speaking as someone new to the game but not new to game development, I think there's something being missed here:  What is the overall vision of the game designers?

    *  Are we all supposed to be able to learn *every* skill?  It would encourage cooperation if, for example, we each had a "patron giant" whose skills we could learn, but *only* his/hers. 

    *  In other game systems, the types of massive collection and processing is generally known as a "grind" because you're just churning through things over and over.  If one of the options of premium (paid) play is bypassing the grind, that could allow paying members to make small islands of content while the rest of us proceed toward other aspects of play.  Arguably, in the "open" content, those of us who get to the point where they build streets, houses, or what-have-you would develop that much more of a sense of ownership.

    *  Are the building projects intended to be the "end-game content" or are there other activities in the works?  If there are other options besides building projects, this may not be as big an argument as it might seem.

    The other side of this, of course, is what the *player* base wants to get from this environment.  I'm sure the devs have done some sort of survey about this (or are about to)--after all, they always need to know how they're doing.  If they rely on just the forums, they may be missing out on an as-important silent portion of the current player-base.  Normally, I do a *lot* of lurking, but as a new participant in this imaginative world, I'm really curious as to what everybody's expecting on either side of the game-design coin here.
    Posted 20 months ago by Hazmat Subscriber! | Permalink
  • "Yeah, I didn't say that right. I meant that *some* of the needed skills would be specified as for lower-level players, not all of them. Maybe straight-up level, rather than skill level, come to think of it."

    i still disagree with that. i prefer it when multilevel groups work together on the same stuff. there are certain tasks that anyone at any level can do, and where higher level players have no advantage. i think those things should be played up, but not things that exclude higher level players entirely.

    if the only players interested in a particular project happen to be of high level, i don't think they should have to bring in a low level character every time. or even most times. hopefully never.

    still, 4 out 5 isn't bad : ]
    Posted 20 months ago by striatic Subscriber! | Permalink
  • '5. Hah, and I am now imagining a scavenger hunt sort of thing. Instead of needing 500 dirts, you need one each of 200 different things. In order to participate, you have to complete the scavenger hunt.'

    That's awesome - I love it. Problem is that there isn't really 200 different items to find :)
    Posted 20 months ago by Cupcake Subscriber! | Permalink
  • "Also, I agree with you on 1, if the materials being dumped in are used to make the things in the second phase. Cherries so lemons can be made, etc."

    That would be pretty harsh: you donate your cherries to get the first phase over with, only to find that you need them to make lemons in the second phase.  Mad cherry harvesting ensues.  You return with a stack of lemons, only to find that someone else has fulfilled the requirement.  Dejected, you leave the project and complain on the forums.
    Posted 20 months ago by glum pudding Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I think the notion would be that the cherries were in the project pool, to be used for making the lemons, glum.

    Not that I know the mechanics of how that would work, mind you, since the cherries need to be in your inventory to make the lemons.
    Posted 20 months ago by clare Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Maybe there would have to be a deliberate action of taking cherries out of a project storehouse to fruit-change, in order to get them in your inventory and within access of your fruit changer.

    What if you had to apply for a job on project?  I like the bureaucracy in Glitch and I wish there was more of it.   Projects could have specific webs of job types (not hierarchies).  So before you could dump your mass of cherries into the project storehouse, you had to get hired as a collector.  Or your specialty could be fruit changing.   Job applications might slow down the feeding frenzy of participation.   

    Of course, now comes the discussion about limits on how many types of jobs one could have on a given project, and then the discussion about the evils/merits of limits/freedom. 
    Posted 20 months ago by Nanookie Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I like the idea of applying for jobs for projects. If somebody doesn't fulfill the job requirements in a specified amount of time, they get fired and somebody else can apply for the job. Some jobs could be aimed at newbies (you would have to be level 3 or less, for example), others at more experienced players, others could only be contracted out to a company (a group).
    Posted 20 months ago by FrankenPaula Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Reminds me of a facebook game where you get to hire your friends as employees
    Posted 20 months ago by roderick ordonez Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Personally, I rather like the drop-in approach to Street Projects. I like being able to wander by and drop off 5 dirt I've collected or turn up with the last 2 crystals needed. I rarely set out saying 'I'm going to work on a street project', mostly they're the shiny object that distracts me from another task. I really dislike the 'sign-up' process. I think it makes projects exclusive and the potential for them to become cliquish is through the roof.
    Posted 20 months ago by Travinara Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Trav...agreed, except I don't think other players should be in charge of hiring, unless at some point players are allowed to create their own projects.  Projects would come with a needed # of hirees, and maybe that Farmville playing croc could be the one who hires, I don't know.

    Of course, that might transfer the rush to dump cherries into a rush to get hired for cherry dumping...
    Posted 20 months ago by Nanookie Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Clare... From your OP I love #4!!
    Posted 20 months ago by Niknik Subscriber! | Permalink