stellarmind said:Syrif said:Chanus said:Didn't they say in one of the streams that coin wouldn't have weight because of things like griefing by handing a player so much copper they can no longer move?
Even if coin isn’t counted as weight, it can still be capped as to how much each character can hold at a time; making banks a useful tool (with a fee that scales to amount).
Players with little coin aren’t punished, and such a system makes it more difficult for RMT and exploitation of market. Mind you, it doesn’t eliminate the problem but it sure helps.
you can make it where coin isn't xferreable p2p
Then you kill the trading economy.
Chanus said:stellarmind said:Syrif said:Chanus said:Didn't they say in one of the streams that coin wouldn't have weight because of things like griefing by handing a player so much copper they can no longer move?
Even if coin isn’t counted as weight, it can still be capped as to how much each character can hold at a time; making banks a useful tool (with a fee that scales to amount).
Players with little coin aren’t punished, and such a system makes it more difficult for RMT and exploitation of market. Mind you, it doesn’t eliminate the problem but it sure helps.
you can make it where coin isn't xferreable p2p
Then you kill the trading economy.
i can still use the marketplace to buy the items i want with a regulated economy. we could still trade items p2p with a cost, but i couldn't give you 1000000000000000000 coins if you gave me $100 USD.
stellarmind said:Chanus said:stellarmind said:Syrif said:Chanus said:Didn't they say in one of the streams that coin wouldn't have weight because of things like griefing by handing a player so much copper they can no longer move?
Even if coin isn’t counted as weight, it can still be capped as to how much each character can hold at a time; making banks a useful tool (with a fee that scales to amount).
Players with little coin aren’t punished, and such a system makes it more difficult for RMT and exploitation of market. Mind you, it doesn’t eliminate the problem but it sure helps.
you can make it where coin isn't xferreable p2p
Then you kill the trading economy.
i can still use the marketplace to buy the items i want with a regulated economy. we could still trade items p2p with a cost, but i couldn't give you 1000000000000000000 coins if you gave me $100 USD.
People on Ebay got around this decades ago by, instead of selling you the banned item, they sold you a pencil that was pictured next to the banned item you're actually looking for.
So I go onto your RMT website and I give you $100 USD and then I list a_beetle_thumb on The Market Interface™, which you then buy for the 1000000000000000000 coins I set as the price.
I'm not opposed to the idea of The Market Interface™ as a way to extract a trading fee for the legitimate sales we make to each other, and thus pull some coin out of the economy at every transaction, I just don't see it as a likely tool to combat RMT.
1000000000000000000000000 coin for a pencil? quick call the the pantheon fbi!
that is pretty clever, they do that with human trafficking.
you want 1 box or 2 of mama ramen noodles(hidden encrypted logo pasted within the image)?
it would be a huge flag for vr to address the account using it for rmt though. hm imma go ponder this a bit while im doing some work.
Chanus said:Syrif said:Chanus said:Didn't they say in one of the streams that coin wouldn't have weight because of things like griefing by handing a player so much copper they can no longer move?
Even if coin isn’t counted as weight, it can still be capped as to how much each character can hold at a time; making banks a useful tool (with a fee that scales to amount).
Players with little coin aren’t punished, and such a system makes it more difficult for RMT and exploitation of market. Mind you, it doesn’t eliminate the problem but it sure helps.
It's not the worst idea, I just don't think it's necessary, and it has drawbacks for the player economy I don't agree are necessary. If you cap how much coin I can carry, you effectively cap what I can pay for items from other players, so value of items becomes relative to the cap, rather than supply -- but at the same time if I can still store money in the bank, I will eventually always have the cap amount of coin on hand.
It makes the system cumbersome but doesn't stop me hoarding coin in any way.
Perhaps high-end, big coin transactions can be done at the bank. Then it’s a “player2banker2player” trade. Both players would see a trade window via clicking on the same banker where said player’s money is stored.
Smaller/moderate trades would not be affected since it would be within the coin-holding limit per character. Banks would definitely be useful. No fee for small amount of stored coin, but fee gradually scales up from there. Bank’s item slots are limited ofc, but coin isn’t. The banker/city guards charge higher fees with higher amount of stored coin. This helps to prevent exploitation of market while also making RMT or overabundance of coin a much more difficult feat.
Chanus said:I am not opposed to transaction fees for player trades, but I don't really see how merely adding the bank interface does anything to combat RMT or market exploitation.
You're just adding overhead, but not preventing anything.
blizzard solution to rmt was start selling in game currency for irl money and soulbinding items.
bdo solution to rmt was no p2p transfer of items or in game currency and levy a heavy %tax on items sold via marketplace. it is also notable to say that items are not soulbound and can readly be sold or transfer to characters of the same account.
we can safely say that items will not have a soulbinding mechanic.
i think pantheon would have to adopt a similar system to bdo.
consumbles are fine p2p, which stupidly bdo does not allow the transfer of all consumbles.
equipment weapons armor accessories, if you want to allow p2p max durability loss occurs, max durability repairs done via a lifeskiller at max rank having the resources bound to that character that can't be traded, sold or bought and can only be obtained doing dungeons, raids, or gathering. (mind you this will not work with bdo since cash shops are a thing in the game)
eh this is the best solution i can come up with without complicating things excessively >.>
k have fun.
make items bitcoinlike though. i'd like the first sword created by aradune and i want the pants first worn by joppa. i would like to include a staff that kilsin used to slap perma bans in the forums. that would be a nice trophy.
Aich said:Watemper said:Aich said:Piggy backs on RMT discussions.
and if you can't beat them join them.
Just allow for permenant item damage on transfer, coin included.
Items can included a owners list like automobiles on inspect.
Coin is easy, wear and tear just like real world.
Items, you transfer it a few times it crumbles.
Sits in bank too long it rusts.
Cut down on RMT.
Dengerating coins, I'm a genius. What a money sink. Forced players to keep money into commodities that fux in market value.
Real world solution. Or too much Sword Art Online.
As much as I hate SAO lol...I will say that the reason why in game economies are a joke is because the items last forever. Now I am not saying all items shouldn't last forever, like epics, quest items, and the stuff you wear and maintain...but they should really explore degregation of items because then the economy will probably do better in the long run.
Would have to look into it a bit deeper, but in game economies are a joke for the most part.
Yeah this why my whole premise behind this post. Just to get people thinking. How far would we go to get a mmorpg with a more hardcore backbone. And why in the hell did you hate SAO? lol
I hate SAO because it crashed like the stockmarket on episode 3 or 4. All the characters suck and are shallow and the romance is forced and robotic. The only thing good about SAO is the animation and fight scenes. The story sucked and is reused and nothing felt originial. At best 6/10. Way overhyped anime. All the best reviewers who reviewed SAO gave it a low rating around a 5-6/10. It is just eye candy. That is all.
@watemper grimgar, overlord, shield hero started off good then it just went ehhhhhhh, no game no life thumbs up, that one anime with the useless goddess was good, blob was overhyped, there's one more... you can't meet girls in a dungeon? that one is fan service. i like the tower of druaga.
Evolving items with a twist
Reverse evolving item on trade.
Fir instance, if its a quested item, and you quest it to completion, if you sell it, the person buying it can own it but the item will be greyed out until they get all the quest pieces, do the sub-turn ins and get all the hail flags. Once done, then the item becomes useable. Sort of a reverse on the Bind on equip or TLC.
Likewise is a item drops off a named mob, and its lore, it can be traded but the person that buys it cannot use it because its greyed out untill they kill that same named mob.
@Stellarmind Shield Hero i watched all the way through and it was good imo. Not amazing...but not bad. The slime one is good also, not amazing, but still a good watch. No game No life is meh to me. Didn't like the sister complex and the characters weren't interesting enough to get me invested. The one I like so far in the new animes is Demon Slayer. Solid story and progression. Never seen tower of Druaga. And these posts will be removed momentarily by Kilisin anyways....back on topic.
The problem with in game economy has to do with degregation, and an insane amount of money accumulated. I think all tradeable items need to have some sort of degregation on them that makes it so you have to maintain them. Reagents should also have a shelf life....like IRL. If we truly want a good economy then we will need to look into these things way more seriously.
said:
Didn't they say in one of the streams that coin wouldn't have weight because of things like griefing by handing a player so much copper they can no longer move?
So when did games start making coin tradable without hitting ACCEPT????
if someone IN your group splits money, you can simply destroy it if you don't want it. no one can split money with you unless you are grouped.
Many games have tried a good deal of the suggestions outlined above to minimal affect. The same problem creeps up on all of them: a money supply that continues to increase at a too fast rate, even with "sinks" (permanent item decay, item repair costs, expensive consumables, etc.). Granted, the cost of the sinks are rarely draconian, which is probably what it would take for these sinks to actually have an impact.
Who knows how far you can push money supply control before it becomes too tedious for a good chunk of the player population. I have no solutions, but since everyone else is throwing around ideas, I'll contribute to the fun: implement a system that allows for the adjustment of money creation and circulation on the fly. This system would give the devs the ability to create boom and bust cycles. For example, if inflation is running too high, decrease (potentially substantially) the amount of realm coin that is being created, while at the same time increase taxes (sales tax, banking fees, etc.). The realm could go through recessions, or even depressions, if warranted.
Silly idea? Probably. Causes other problems? Definitely. But, if the devs are serious about creating a stable enconmy that lasts over years, which I'm not actually sure they are (most MMOs just inflate into oblivion, which isn't necessarily a problem for a 7-10 year lifespan), some means of powerful inflation control will have to be dreamt up.
P.S. I love the added realism of boom/bust cycles, especially in a medieval/fantasy type setting where the world is a precarious place. I'm all for systems that change world dynamics through time. Maybe it's time for a depression in Terminus!
Dark age of Camelot had SLOW item decay with USE, not storage, depnending where you got hit.
every few hours (5-10+) you had to repair (condition)
you could repair your item at least 10-20x (durability)
it prevents item deflation, make it so a good magic item should last ~ 1 year @ 10-20 hours / week, and it won't be that bad, still makes things worthwhile to re-obtain / obtain new. Especially for crafting.
it allows gifting of items to still be valued and remmebered if you use something for 6 months +.
Flapp said:said:
Didn't they say in one of the streams that coin wouldn't have weight because of things like griefing by handing a player so much copper they can no longer move?
So when did games start making coin tradable without hitting ACCEPT????
if someone IN your group splits money, you can simply destroy it if you don't want it. no one can split money with you unless you are grouped.
Ask Brad. He's the one who said it as far as I recall.
It wasn't a matter of trading coin with a player, but leaving stacks on the ground that are too heavy to carry. It all looks like a single coin, but if you pick it up, you're now stuck until you destroy it.
I'm not saying I think it's the most rock-solid argument against coin weight, just repeating what I heard.
Eriugena said:Many games have tried a good deal of the suggestions outlined above to minimal affect. The same problem creeps up on all of them: a money supply that continues to increase at a too fast rate, even with "sinks" (permanent item decay, item repair costs, expensive consumables, etc.). Granted, the cost of the sinks are rarely draconian, which is probably what it would take for these sinks to actually have an impact.
Who knows how far you can push money supply control before it becomes too tedious for a good chunk of the player population. I have no solutions, but since everyone else is throwing around ideas, I'll contribute to the fun: implement a system that allows for the adjustment of money creation and circulation on the fly. This system would give the devs the ability to create boom and bust cycles. For example, if inflation is running too high, decrease (potentially substantially) the amount of realm coin that is being created, while at the same time increase taxes (sales tax, banking fees, etc.). The realm could go through recessions, or even depressions, if warranted.
Silly idea? Probably. Causes other problems? Definitely. But, if the devs are serious about creating a stable enconmy that lasts over years, which I'm not actually sure they are (most MMOs just inflate into oblivion, which isn't necessarily a problem for a 7-10 year lifespan), some means of powerful inflation control will have to be dreamt up.
P.S. I love the added realism of boom/bust cycles, especially in a medieval/fantasy type setting where the world is a precarious place. I'm all for systems that change world dynamics through time. Maybe it's time for a depression in Terminus!
So, I don't personally think there's any way to completely eliminate inflation over the long term. It's just a natural progression when you have a limitless influx of coin, even if there are measures in place to later remove it from the economy.
But inflation gratia inflation isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's inevitable, and as long as it's not due to exploits like coin duping, it's just how it goes.
If there are enough small measures in place to keep it in check, I think that would be enough. It doesn't have to be draconian and it doesn't have to be extremely effective. It just needs to help slow the rate as much as possible without getting in the way of gameplay.
The multitude of problems all relating to this.
1. Without control of the economy, in-game currencies will devalue over time as more are "grinded".
2. Without control of the item economy, items will flood the market and devalue over time as more are "grinded".
3. With more items being grinded crafted items slowly, but steadily devalue over time making certain profession irrelevant or pointless.
4. Crafted items needs to be en par with grinded items so that they can compete or possibly even out-do dropped ones.
To solve them there needs to be systems in place that:
1. Controls the influx of currencies and combats it. This is done through Auction House cuts and Repair Costs - both needs to be reasonable enough so that players can turn a profit whilst it not spiralling out of control. The auction house cut would take a chunk out of the money from Auctions making sure that items do not devalue on it, but not to a point in which it becomes useless to use it. Repairs needs to take a direct chunk out of players pockets so that currency does not devalue, it should also decay the durability of the item.
2. Item decay is good - done right. It is not good removing the item entirely from the economy because the durability reached 0/0 and now it can no longer be repaired. Item decay done right should take salvaged materials from other items eg. you break down Item B, you get materials that can be used in the repairing the durability of your Item A etc. You effectively remove items from the economy this way and keep them from flooding the market - helping both crafters and adventurers trying to sell their items.
3. Crafters should be able to restore durability back to an item indefinitely with the right material(s) and possibly a tip (if you're kind) and providing the materials or a fee for the material you didn't provide, but is used in the process. Secondly certain select NPC blacksmith can do it for a hefty fee, the required material(s) and for much less durability. This would necessitate all crafts and no one craft would become useless.
4. Crafted items should be able to be improved with the salvaged materials from dropped items to make an improved version. Heck, if you want to prevent inflation of crafted items you could let them be salvaged too in order to restore durability.
These ways would all go about keeping items and currencies - regardless of acquisition method from devalueing over time whilst not being unfair or unfun. Currency is the most finnicky one and if necessary - I would not oppose VR doing what GW2 Economist does. Remove currency from the game from time to time to keep a healthy economy.
So, I'm not quite sure what problem we're trying to solve here. At first this thread was about RMT, but lately it seems like the discussion has shifted to inflation and currency pooling in the economy in general.
I think we should all keep some key things in mind when offering up potential solutions:
1) Any time you make an item difficult, challenging, or expensive to obtain in game, there is the potential that some players will resort to RMT to obtain that item. History has shown that this can't be avoided. That doesn't mean that it has to be easy and that there shouldn't be penalties for doing that, but we should never be under the illusion that we're going to be able to stamp the practice out altogether.
2) In order for people to feel economically "successful" while playing, they need to be able to earn more money than they have to spend via normal gameplay. It doesn't have to be a lot more - but it has to be there. If people feel like they are unable to earn money without significantly changing the way they play, they will become bitter and resentful because of that. Due to this, we must accept that there will always probably be some level of currency pooling occurring.
3) Money sinks that target only a specific portion of the playerbase or a specific activity (such as crafting) are generally not effective in the long term. At best, they will slow down that set of players (or force them to raise the prices they charge everyone else). At worst, they will actively drive players away from that activity by making it something that's simply not fun to do for many of them.
I have my own opinions (obviously) on what works and what doesn't in terms of money sinks but I just wanted to point these three things out for now, because they're more or less universal truths that I think apply here. It doesn't mean that there can't or shouldn't be controls on money and the economy, but it means that care must be taken if you want those things to help the game rather than harm it.
Nephele said:So, I'm not quite sure what problem we're trying to solve here. At first this thread was about RMT, but lately it seems like the discussion has shifted to inflation and currency pooling in the economy in general.
I think we should all keep some key things in mind when offering up potential solutions:
1) Any time you make an item difficult, challenging, or expensive to obtain in game, there is the potential that some players will resort to RMT to obtain that item. History has shown that this can't be avoided. That doesn't mean that it has to be easy and that there shouldn't be penalties for doing that, but we should never be under the illusion that we're going to be able to stamp the practice out altogether.
2) In order for people to feel economically "successful" while playing, they need to be able to earn more money than they have to spend via normal gameplay. It doesn't have to be a lot more - but it has to be there. If people feel like they are unable to earn money without significantly changing the way they play, they will become bitter and resentful because of that. Due to this, we must accept that there will always probably be some level of currency pooling occurring.
3) Money sinks that target only a specific portion of the playerbase or a specific activity (such as crafting) are generally not effective in the long term. At best, they will slow down that set of players (or force them to raise the prices they charge everyone else). At worst, they will actively drive players away from that activity by making it something that's simply not fun to do for many of them.
I have my own opinions (obviously) on what works and what doesn't in terms of money sinks but I just wanted to point these three things out for now, because they're more or less universal truths that I think apply here. It doesn't mean that there can't or shouldn't be controls on money and the economy, but it means that care must be taken if you want those things to help the game rather than harm it.
i blame aich for not titling 'rmt solutions'. man that sounds like an llc :D it is rather confusing, but rmt means 'real money transfer'?