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.
Oof- I see where this is going, but I am not sure how well it would be received or work.. Lot of players may just be casuals and have things in the bank they want to save, but then it degrades..
The people who you trade items to are getting an immediate hit on item value.. And your money could just disappear or the money you get for something is less than what you actually are getting..
Too many factors of deciding time frames for degredation..
I just.. I just can't agree with it Aich! D:
Astartes31 said:Oof- I see where this is going, but I am not sure how well it would be received or work.. Lot of players may just be casuals and have things in the bank they want to save, but then it degrades..
The people who you trade items to are getting an immediate hit on item value.. And your money could just disappear or the money you get for something is less than what you actually are getting..
Too many factors of deciding time frames for degredation..
I just.. I just can't agree with it Aich! D:
Dont transfer it then :)
Log in and take care of your stuff. Why is this any different then an deliquent storage locker in the real world? If you stop paying for your acount then you crap should rot or be open for auction.(Another good idea). Items should have decay rates if not kept in the right conditions.
and yes an item that freshly looted holds more value then one thats on its last legs. Maybe crafting can bring it back.
Use imagination people.
Account transfer thru shared bank are immune tho of course.
Permanent item damage on transfer penalizes community - some gifts change hands sans remuneration. I got an amazing item once from a complete stranger who was retiring and wanted his gear to adventure on after he was gone. I have given several coveted items to guildmates and real life friends who hadn’t enough time or skill to acquire for themselves.
Don’t throw out generosity with the greed bathwater.
A tracking list is interesting (applied to crafted items in some games, at least for the original creator). I suspect that most items would have either a single name or a long list of unknown names. Rare indeed that you would vendor dive, find a unique “Flash” item, check the transaction list and see the sole previous owner was Bazgrim! That would be awesome, and modern databases could probably handle it (unlike 1999), but most of the data would just be useless clutter. What happens if you routinely loan some lower tier raid gear to new guildies - I guess that’s one way to track who joined when - check the list on the newbie hat ;)
I do enjoy the thought of degenerating coin. Reminds me of those gold foil wrapped chocolate coins we would get as kids at holidays. They decayed rapidly, Yum!
seriously, this idea couldn't be any worse. Because I need to take a few months off after playing for 3 years I lose all my gear? seriously no one will play this game with nonsense like that in it.
i can't pass the item to a couple twinks because it will break ? terrible idea. sorry
Aich said:
Dengerating coins, I'm a genius.
I think every replied showed that it's far from a genius stroke, so I don't have much more to add but:
No thanks!
You fight RMT by not RMTing and not buying from the RMTers, it that simple, if your not doing it than why do you give a crap if someone else is doing it? I mean you personally wouldn't even know the difference, don't get me wrong the dev team need something in place to help figure out who is RMTing, but have them worry about that, let us just play the game, and not buy from RMTers.
Not sure how the item database system will work but having the item holder names attached on the back end similar to how bitcoin works might be a tool VR can use. It doesn't need to have any visible effect on the front end. I also like the idea of items having a usage history that can causes it to gain bonuses, and maybe negatives, based on how it has been used but that massively changes how the item economy works.
Outside of that as a crafting enthusiast I am in favor of item decay but I get rotten tomatos thrown at me any time I bring it up.
Trasak said: ... Outside of that as a crafting enthusiast I am in favor of item decay but I get rotten tomatos thrown at me any time I bring it up.
I haven't seen an outline or implemention plan, personally, that is fun and challenging. For me and mine, it falls into the "molecular knife edge" category of game design. What does that mean?
It means it's either underpowered or overpowered, and there is no middle ground. There is no edge where you can tune the mechanic.
Specifically, item decay, to be effective, needs to meet a goal. So what's the goal? Is it to remove currency? Remove mats? Be a sink of some kind, any kind? Reduce item permanence? Drive customers to the cash shop? (I know, not here, but in other games, yes)
If any of those design goals are in scope for item decay, then it has to actually be something that affects the character negatively. In other words, the player can calculate how much it costs them to adventure. Adventuring now costs money. Guaranteed. You cannot avoid it. If you're in combat, for any reason (in order to be fair to all, remember), then your items take damage. So, if you don't get, per fight, the amount of currency, mats, faction, prestige, karma, fame, or whatever other thing you need to recover the cost of combat, you're in the hole.
Fighting "in the red" on the balance sheet is not... really that fun. It's not even that challenging. You simply know, if I'm in combat for this amount of time, I'm going to need to recover this amount of 'whatever' just to break even. Well sheesh, that is downright unpleasant to think about, for most paying customers. It's like your vehicle depreciating before your eyes, as in, your brand new car gets more new visible rust for each hour you drive it. Make it stop! :)
So, the first reaction most designers go through is, well, ok, so don't make it THAT bad. Here's the kinfe edge problem, though. If it's not THAT bad? It's not effective. It HAS to be that bad in order for there to be any value or point in implementing the mechanic, at all. Either your adventurers are consuming their gear before their eyes to adventure, or they aren't. Either they are fighting 'in the red' or they're not. Is the balance positive or negative, after each fight? You can't make it zero, unless you artificially compensate players for the exact amount of damage they receive, which betrays the whole value proposition of the idea in the first place.
Result? It's typically made positive after player outcry, which again, ultimately makes it pointless. I've seen a negative balance item decay system. Shroud tried it. It was absolutely horrendous. It created the worst selfish, greedy, toxic behavior in players, because they were simply desperate to break even. And of course, desperate for exploits that let them ignore the mechanic, too, which didn't help.
It also has the side effect, if effective, of making all items transient, which is.. problematic for a different set of reasons. PFO tried it, and while it was a PvP focused game, even there, it created some pretty terrible emergent behavior, and drove development into some very dark places. Like waiting actual RL out-of-game weeks for a single item to be crafted, which was consumed in 20 "uses", after which you couldn't participate in the game any more. How in the world is that good design? Well as it turns out, it wasn't, and their subscriber numbers bore that out.
Aich said:Just allow for permenant item damage on transfer, coin included.
Scenario: I'm in a group and people are looting as they see fit when we notice a good item drop that someone picked up. The person who picked it up doesn't want it and another person does..only now they get a damaged item? No thank you.
This is a terrible solution looking for a problem that doesn't exist. It sure as heck won't eliminate RMT as such degradation will just be factored into the equation. So long as money exist in the game, some subset of the population will want to buy it with real money and others will be more than willing to sell it to them.
DAoC did item decay pretty well but it was a system that was based on non-named crafted items rather than unique named dropped items. There were still plenty of dropped items but they were more often valued for the materials they could be salvaged into.
SWG also had item decay that wasn’t too hateful but again it was a game where the itemization was based on player crafted items with looted items being materials rather than finished goods.
In both systems the item decay was intended to keep the total number of items in the game economy down and create constant demand for crafted items.
I have seen some formulas on what the right amount of decay is but they are usually complex multi-part functions favoring a slight increase in item inventory over time after factoring the items that effectively disappear through player attrition. It usually becomes a function of the value of a crafters time which in turn requires crafting something to be a non-trivial amount of time. The longer the actual crafting process takes then the longer the global life span of an individual item can be to maintain to global inventory at desired levels.
Basically items can be made on demand though high value items will take high value materials, difficulty to collect rather than rare to collect. The return on the item just has to be high enough to make the crafter want to make an item for a player rather than just do another crafting quest that might net them more experience or further their craft.
Decay on coins. No under any circumstances.
Decay on items *caused* by them being transferred. No under any circumstances.
Items already decayed retaining that decay after they are transferred - of course.
Item decay being permanent and not subject to repair. Or alternatively the repaired item having somewhat reduced abilities or there being a maximum number of times any items can be repaired. - Yes
Trasek and I tend to agree on points like this and for similar reasons. It enhances the value of crafters.
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.
My suggestion.
1.No item decay for the original owner.
2.On transfer, item get item decay with repair to 100% if maintained.
3.On second transfer item gets limited repair capabilities
4.On third transfer item risks crumbling apart each use.
Crafter of item doesn't count as original owner, unless equipped.
Trasak said: ... In both systems the item decay was intended to keep the total number of items in the game economy down and create constant demand for crafted items. ...
In games where items can be player-crafted or npc-dropped procedurally, and there is personal loot, and even smart loot? It makes sense to have a constant demand for items, to consume them, to create a sink for the time, materials, items, currency, whatever-it-takes, to make them. Items are everywhere. Easy to find. Easy to craft.
But essentially, that boils down to adventure tax. It's like in UO when you needed the reagents of black pearl and nightshade to cast ebolt. Adventure tax. You want to use ebolt? You pay a black pearl and nightshade for every cast.
You want to use this sword made of steel? You lose 1% of it's durability per minute of combat. In 100 minutes, the sword no longer "works" and you have to swap in a new sword, or use a repair kit. Adventure tax.
It's all the same mechanic dressed up different ways. Personally, I'm not a fan of these types of reactive mechanics. I prefer a mechanic that encourages the behavior I want in the player, rather than taxing them. Nobody likes paying taxes, yet, people enjoy giving gifts. If, for example, you took Pantheons salvage and sacrifice mechanics, and expanded on them, you can come up with some really creative ways to make players want to give away more than what they must give up, as an adventure tax.
It's a very simple change, it's just rewarding the player for a choice, rather than removing the element of choice and taxing them.
Put another way, you can create a constant demand for crafted items by having NPCs reward players for donating those items to a kingdom, npc guild, faction, or deity. Similarly, the result of donation, salvage, or sacrifice can be buffs that aid you in adventuring or sacrifice-relevant activities. The more you give, the better the buffs, rewards, or effects. And I'm not talking about random, I'm talking deterministic. If I give 10 fishing poles to this NPC, he gives me 5 hours of a fishing buff. Or 10 minutes of a fishing buff, whatever tune-able value is appropriate.
Similarly, if I am fighting undead, let crafters make items that when sacrificed on altars or donated, give my class a particular efficacy against undead, as in, skill or spell amplifiers.
If tuned appropriately, such a system would create emergent behavior that is much more positive, social, and 'sticky', as they say, that just another variant of an adventure tax, imo.
Vandraad said:Aich said:Just allow for permenant item damage on transfer, coin included.
Scenario: I'm in a group and people are looting as they see fit when we notice a good item drop that someone picked up. The person who picked it up doesn't want it and another person does..only now they get a damaged item? No thank you.
This is a terrible solution looking for a problem that doesn't exist. It sure as heck won't eliminate RMT as such degradation will just be factored into the equation. So long as money exist in the game, some subset of the population will want to buy it with real money and others will be more than willing to sell it to them.
Why are they picking up items they dont want? Seems like a silly argurment when people pay attention to what drops.
There is a rmt problem, always will be. You just dont know where to look. PM on discord if care to talk more.
HemlockReaper said:My suggestion.
1.No item decay for the original owner.
2.On transfer, item get item decay with repair to 100% if maintained.
3.On second transfer item gets limited repair capabilities
4.On third transfer item risks crumbling apart each use.Crafter of item doesn't count as original owner, unless equipped.
I Like it.
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
@OP
A very interesting idea indeed. It would help solve the problem of overabundance of coin that has happened in every mmorpg.
Very interesting.
Syrif said:Keno Monster said:Frankly I don't understand posts like these. There isn't going to be item damage, and there are many many other ways to take coin out of the economy.
Such as?..
Just curious what ideas you have.
Food and drink will probably be a thing, they can just triple the cost of that and take money out of the system. Crafting components, reagents, dyes, training costs, etc, etc, ect.
Some will argue that the above money sinks are the same thing, but in a game where iconic encounters, guilds, players and items are a thing, that's not the case. They aren't going to destroy the Cloak of Flames because it got traded one too many times. It's pointless to suggest they should.
Also, I don't need to have ideas. They're going to do what they're going to do, which is kind of my point. There are all these posts about what should or shouldn't be that are so far off the mark from what the game actually is. And yes, VR will waffle hem and haw because they don't want backlash, but they're making the game per the vision they have, that road is paved.
And I get it, we're here to discuss as fans, most of whom have put our money where our mouth is, but let's keep it real.
@Keno
I was thinking coin specifically (not items and not cloak of flame). How is overabundance of coin prevented if not for decay? As for the vision, I am all onboard. But to my knowledge, overabundance of coin isn’t laid out one way or another - or is it? So, I imagine that‘s why this problem is being discussed.
Syrif said:@Keno
I was thinking coin specifically (not items and not cloak of flame). How is overabundance of coin prevented if not for decay?
I literally listed five ways with about 30 seconds of thought. Why do you need a seventh when you can just turn the dial up on the others? smh