No Sell - I am convinced

[Magnate]

Yup! We'd have to rearrange the stores again so that everything fitted in 8 buildings but that's fine.

We have a hard-coded limit of eight buildings??

[Derakon]

I think he was talking about the town layout, which is roughly a 4x2 grid of buildings.

[camlost]

I just don't understand the arguments against a selling-game.

I'll boil them down for you: most players spend time/effort dealing with items they only intend sell instead of playing other parts of the game they prefer more.

[Magnate]

This is a great idea!

One problem I see though is that new players will not realise it's there...

My thought was to do something a little different, which wouldn't require saving and loading of kit. (Well actually it wasn't my idea, apparently it was in EyAngband). Instead it was to provide a list of possible kits at the end of character creation, showing the amount of gold remaining. I was imagining up to half a dozen could be available for any given class. So for example a mage might choose from:

1. book 1, sling, 20 iron shots, 5 rations, 3 torches, ?WoR

2. book 1, dagger, soft leather, wicker shield, 5 rations, 3 torches, ?WoR

3. book 1, book 2, 5 rations, 3 torches, 5 !CSW

4. book 1, book 2, main gauche, ?WoR, ?satisfy

... etc. It occurs to me that this would combine well with the load/save idea: we could provide a small number of basic kits, but players could add kits of their own which they prefer ...

[Magnate]

I think he was talking about the town layout, which is roughly a 4x2 grid of buildings.

But there's no reason why it has to be, surely?

[takkaria]

But there's no reason why it has to be, surely?

I'd like it to be ^_^

[relic]

I'll boil them down for you: most players spend time/effort dealing with items they only intend sell instead of playing other parts of the game they prefer more.

I guess I should have written: I don't understand why some players play in such a way that causes them to have arguments against it.

Anyway, why do they spend time/effort dealing with items they only intend sell.
They don't want to do it and don't need to do it either. Or maybe they do feel the need to do it? (in my opinion unnecessarily so).

[Susramanian]

I just don't understand the arguments against a selling-game.

Here's a well-written essay on a somewhat related topic that offers some insight into why many players despise selling games: http://www.designer-notes.com/?p=369

To summarize the bit that applies to the current discussion, optimal gameplay is mandatory for many players. These are players that approach a game as a puzzle to which an optimal solution must be found. These are players for whom discovering an exploit or cheesy tactic destroys all fun, since they have discovered an optimal solution for the puzzle which removes challenge, and that solution cannot be undiscovered. Selling carefully and frequently certainly isn't an exploit or cheesy tactic, but it is optimal gameplay and therefore mandatory for a certain (very common, I suspect) type of player. Many of these players don't even realize that their optimal gameplay is less fun than it could be until the rules change, and suddenly something they had previously felt compelled to do is no longer possible.

It's like shedding a set of iron shackles.

Those that don't approach games this way probably don't even realize the existence of the mindset I just described, and are thus mystified when they hear for people calling for the abolition of selling. They say, "if you don't like it, then don't do it!" It doesn't work that way for the mandatory-optimization players. They pit their wits against the rule set as it exists, and they have to do their best. If something isn't fun, but it gives them an edge, they'll do it.

To make these mandatory-optimization players happiest, developers should strive to make optimal gameplay align perfectly with fun gameplay. This is exactly what the no-selling game does.

[relic]

Thanks for your reply, Susramanian. This explains a lot. I am surely not one of those optimal gameplay persons, at least not in that sense. That is, I believe (maybe fooling myself) that my game-style is optimal in some other sense.

[takkaria]

Here's a well-written essay on a somewhat related topic that offers some insight into why many players despise selling games: http://www.designer-notes.com/?p=369

To summarize the bit that applies to the current discussion, optimal gameplay is mandatory for many players. These are players that approach a game as a puzzle to which an optimal solution must be found. These are players for whom discovering an exploit or cheesy tactic destroys all fun, since they have discovered an optimal solution for the puzzle which removes challenge, and that solution cannot be undiscovered. Selling carefully and frequently certainly isn't an exploit or cheesy tactic, but it is optimal gameplay and therefore mandatory for a certain (very common, I suspect) type of player. Many of these players don't even realize that their optimal gameplay is less fun than it could be until the rules change, and suddenly something they had previously felt compelled to do is no longer possible.

It's like shedding a set of iron shackles.

Those that don't approach games this way probably don't even realize the existence of the mindset I just described, and are thus mystified when they hear for people calling for the abolition of selling. They say, "if you don't like it, then don't do it!" It doesn't work that way for the mandatory-optimization players. They pit their wits against the rule set as it exists, and they have to do their best. If something isn't fun, but it gives them an edge, they'll do it.

To make these mandatory-optimization players happiest, developers should strive to make optimal gameplay align perfectly with fun gameplay. This is exactly what the no-selling game does.

That's interesting, thanks.

[relic]

OK ending my part of this discussion, I just want to say that I realize now that the selling part of Angband is not favorable to some (most?) players, although it's still hard to believe, but that's just projection from my part.

I guess I could characterize myself as a VLS-person, as in Very Little Selling. But that little selling I do, I like.

[ChodTheWacko]

Anyway, why do they spend time/effort dealing with items they only intend sell.
They don't want to do it and don't need to do it either. Or maybe they do feel the need to do it? (in my opinion unnecessarily so).

Every time I go into the Black Market and see something I really want but can't afford, it reinforces the selling mentality.

- Frank

[Max Stats]

I think he was talking about the town layout, which is roughly a 4x2 grid of buildings.

But there's no reason why it has to be, surely?

You'd have to get it past the neighborhood association first.

[Bahman Rabii]

Every time I go into the Black Market and see something I really want but can't afford, it reinforces the selling mentality.

- Frank

That is only because you think of selling as the way to get gold. When you break that association - and start to value gold drops and the increased value of the no-sell gold drops - then you won't have that reaction.

[buzzkill]

I think Relic and DOS have a point here, reinforced by Susramanian's blurb. I was never a compulsive seller, but every once in a while, I'd need gold so I'd sell stuff, sometime even useful stuff. I like no selling, but I could play with selling too, without it ruling my world.

It's possible they just don't see the need for no selling because selling was never first and foremost. The fact that gold drops were exaggerated to compensate for no selling makes it's widespread acceptance somewhat tainted.