Iksar said:Also, who honestly would like losing coin on death? Who wants even more long term group interruptions/downtime as people run off to store their coin?
It's a matter of balance here. (This topic is hypothetical.) You don't want people to run back every 10 minutes, but you want to stear away from coin drops as much as possible. Being able to spend the entire 3 hours of your playsession without having to trade or bank personal goods might not be optimal either.
Let's say you run a dungeon group, but not every mob drops something. (especially if coin would be out of the picture)
The time it takes for the entire group to fill their bags, might take longer, purely by the amount and frequency of items being dropped or that are present in that dungeon.
If your group starts with 1/2 of their bags already full, the time spent in that dungeon might be shorter indeed. But that has more to do with preparing for a dungeon run.
Aside of that, there might be npc's around that can (temporarily?) store coin or goods or that are available to trade your goods with.
@Iksar
There has not been any confirmation that there will be at will teleporting of any kind. It actually goes against many of the tenents. Summoner might be able to make an in zone portal. Druids and Wizards can access the Gates or Stone Circles but you may need to travel to one by land first and then teleport to another one, not from anywhere at any time to any specific Gate/Circle. EQ gate to bind spell I don't believe has ever been listed.
If there is teleporting I am in favor of needing to be below your encumbrance to be able to teleport. That way we kill all the ridiculous shenanigans that can happen by loading someone down till they can't move then teleporting.
@Barin
I was actually thinking the peddlers would be players who choose to travel back and forth from town and adventuring area's solely for the purpose of making money by exchanging with other players. A traveling NPC could be interesting but this could be one for emergent gameplay to handle.
Barin999 said:HemlockReaper said:1.Making coins have considerable weight.(Limiting the carry amount)
2.Coins Dropped on death are lost.
4.Coins no longer drop from kills, only things that can be sold to merchants.
6.Banks charge a holding fee over a certain amount of money held, increasing at set intervals.That sorta thing.
1,2,4,6 seem very reasonable mechanics.
Concerning:
3.Coins degrade over time when carried.
Although I understand that it's meant as moneysinks, I'm not sure how I feel about coin degrading. If I'm going on a holiday, I don't want to return with no coin in my bags. Or if I go afk for 3 hours, I expect to have the same amount in my bags.
5.Merchants have a limited supply of coin, resupplied as the economy needs.
In case there is a very active community (likely the first few years of the game, at least), those npc's would be out of coin rather quickly. If you have gear farmers on that server, those "economy needs" would be artificially be kept high or ever increasing. Which kind of undermines the entire goal, what you were aiming for by this mechanic. The upside would be that you'll have a lot of players running from one NPC to another to find an NPC with enough coin. On the other side, wouldn't this just lead up to NPC being bypassed and auctionchannels being primarly used, either to trade for goods or to sell for coin?
3. Didn't meant to suggest degradation continues when logged out, only while the account is active online.
4.The idea is that there would be a finite amount of money in circulation, increased or decreased by the devs. The money in circulation is what works it way to the merchants. Think of it like a global bank where there’s a initial starting amount of X thats that feeds the merchants money, as players sell things that money gets depleted, but is replenished through the moneysinks in the game as they feed the bank, or X in the bank is increased/decreased by the Dev's if necessary to control inflation, or prevent a drought of money.
The general idea is that a infinite source of coin though killing mobs is not healthy for the economy.
Trasak said:@Iksar
There has not been any confirmation that there will be at will teleporting of any kind. It actually goes against many of the tenents. Summoner might be able to make an in zone portal. Druids and Wizards can access the Gates or Stone Circles but you may need to travel to one by land first and then teleport to another one, not from anywhere at any time to any specific Gate/Circle. EQ gate to bind spell I don't believe has ever been listed.
Other than the fact the teleports are on the class pages. Regardless of if players have to move to specific locations to teleport, it's still a massive advantage to those who can do so as they please. And of course you also have Enchanter with extremely favorable means to travel into most city locations/banks or otherwise have favorable trade rates due to faction manipulation.
Barin999 said:It's a matter of balance here. (This topic is hypothetical.)
Balance in what way? How is losing all of ones money upon death balanced? That adds a growing imbalance to the weight of the death penalty based on personal wealth, to the point it can absolutely wreck a player (and at the extreme end - losing monthly subs) for something as simple as dying.
Iksar said:Barin999 said:It's a matter of balance here. (This topic is hypothetical.)
Balance in what way? How is losing all of ones money upon death balanced? That adds a growing imbalance to the weight of the death penalty based on personal wealth, to the point it can absolutely wreck a player (and at the extreme end - losing monthly subs) for something as simple as dying.
I read something interesting recently to the effect of "A law with only a financial penalty is a law only for poor people." Wealthy players don't carry their wealth around with them whereas a poor player might be carrying a significant portion of their net worth with them because they just acquired it on that dungeon run. Now when they die they have lost something quite significant where the wealthy player that died alongside them shrugs it off.
Food for thought.
Barin999 said:"@beaverbiscuit : I only like to get enough money to buy what, @hemlockreaper: I’d consider myself rich when I can buy anything in the game, @ dorotea: My goal is to have some extra coin to occasionally make crafting faster by buying materials instead of harvesting them, @bigdogchris: Only need as much as I need to buy the equipment I want for my twinks. Beyond that it doesn't mean anything, @fatedemperor: that money always had something that it was going towards, @kotter: I enjoy making plat more than having plat, @fyerwall: I like having just enough money in game to cover repair costs, @gottbeard: I scrimp, save, and efficiently grind together whatever amount is required, @Faymom: But I want it to really be a challenge to get to that point."
If I recap the input of the people listed above, it seems people are willing to work for their maintenance/ ongoing costs. The amount of coin is not something that is a goal for the majority of people here. Coin is seen as means to an end, but has no inherent value or other meaning to the player itself.
So what I gather from this is that you’d be ok with having no coin drops at all, but just items to be sold. And in fact, you’d enjoy this even more because you have to work for it. The time it takes to build up enough funds to buy whatever you want or need, is perceived as more meaningful.
If more people respond in this thread, it would present an even better picture. If this is the way players view coin and the concept of being “rich”, you’re providing a lot of insight into the community and an angle for VR to design their economy accordingly (if that is what they want ofc).
The question I would ask to the above players listed above, would you be ok or enjoy even, the period where you “struggle”, work yourself up to the point of being able to purchase Something? --> The period of time where you do not (yet) have enough money to obtain what you want. Or would you rather have several easy paths by which you can easily and quickly farm up the amount you need?
I would think that I would enjoy the struggle, as long as the end goal is within sight. If I need to go farming for days, then I wouldn’t be as motivated to gather the resources to sell for coin ,etc. If I need 2-3-5 play sessions of casual gameplay where I can obtain enough money without having that farm-feeling, I would enjoy that even more. Even if that means, that the time of struggle is longer. (underlying structure is; invest in content to obtain resources that I can sell for coin or trade for my desired item).
I wouldn't say getting rid of coin drops would be what most of us were getting at. In most cases that combined with loot vendoring will just about cover daily character maintenance. The question was 'How rich do you want to be' and the answers were that a lot of people don't focus on gaining money as part of their enjoyment of the game. Some people will focus on gaining as much coin as possible. As I said, I like having enough money to cover my hazardous ways as well as crafting/material costs. If I end up having more than that, thats great, but I am not spending my days just acquiring gold.
Take a real job for example - I could work a job that offers unlimited overtime, everyday and as much as you desire. Will I maybe work a few hours to get a bit more in my paycheck? Sure. Would I work an additional 40 hours every week just to bank money and never enjoy life? Good lord no! Its all about balance.
Gaining money in game should not be a chore (not saying it should rain coins on every kill either). You can pull coin out of the economy through other money sinks.
In AO we had a fun death penalty. When you died, you lost every bit of XP you had gained in your current level. You could have spent hours gaining XP and be just 1 point shy of level, die and lose it all. Unless you used an insurance terminal every chance you had. You had to pay to save it and if you were broke, well, you had to risk not dying. Some people enjoyed the thrill of potentially losing an entire almost level of XP. Now you wouldn't delevel, but if you needed to gain a million XP for the next level and died with 999,999, well it hurt. Especially when you might only get about 300xp from a mob or 1000xp from a mission boss.
Something like that could be worked into the game for the death penalty. Visit an NPC who, for a fee (based on level - higher the level, higher the cost) would give you a blessing that saves your current XP gains.
Will you and your group give up your prime camping spot to save every few minutes? Will you waste precious play time running 1 person at a time to town to save, leaving the team short handed and at risk of facing respawns alone? Probably not. Will you save after returning to town, even though after many deaths you only managed to get a net gain of a couple hundred XP? I am willing to bet some would happily slap down that 100ish gold to do so.
It could add an extra rush to grouping. It might make people pay a bit more attention in game. And for some, it could lend itself to an extreme ironman type game play where they could feel proud that they managed to hit level cap without once using this NPC. If the game has any form of achievement system, it could award a title like 'The Perseverant' or something ('Crazy Person You Don't Want To Run Into In A Dark Alley' maybe?).
just in this how rich do you want to be you can see there is the adventure RPGers that just want to play the game feel like they fit in the world. Then there is the I want to sit in town not play the game well I make all the coin playing the market. Why build the game to allow these greedy and lets be real they will be the one running RMT becuase if there this greedy in game they are the same out of game.
If you really want to play a game to play the market there or more stock sims than I can count out there have fun or download robinhood maybe you can do it for real on Dollar trades.
Vixx said:just in this how rich do you want to be you can see there is the adventure RPGers that just want to play the game feel like they fit in the world. Then there is the I want to sit in town not play the game well I make all the coin playing the market. Why build the game to allow these greedy and lets be real they will be the one running RMT becuase if there this greedy in game they are the same out of game.
If you really want to play a game to play the market there or more stock sims than I can count out there have fun or download robinhood maybe you can do it for real on Dollar trades.
I understand your anger with RMT, as I am completely against it as well, but no, I disagree with your extreme take on what people should be doing with their time in game.
Vixx said:just in this how rich do you want to be you can see there is the adventure RPGers that just want to play the game feel like they fit in the world. Then there is the I want to sit in town not play the game well I make all the coin playing the market. Why build the game to allow these greedy and lets be real they will be the one running RMT becuase if there this greedy in game they are the same out of game.
If you really want to play a game to play the market there or more stock sims than I can count out there have fun or download robinhood maybe you can do it for real on Dollar trades.
I have seen the argument that “X game already has Y, go play that.” used a lot for many different things.
To me an MMORPG, especially one striving to be a world and not just a game, will include as many aspects of life and methods of play as possible. There are certainly priorities for features to get the game out the door but the sky is the limit for expansion content.
It is good to watch out for abusive behavior and certainly anything that violates the EULA needs to be properly delt with. It has also come up that if player are not buying then RMT sites are not selling. If we as a community really took a stand against RMT and helped police it then the impact could be much lower than in other games.
Liquid wealth though is really just a form of game resources commonly used for commerce. If you look at the in game cost to be brought on a raid and allowed to loot a specific item those no-drop raid items are often the true wealth in the game. It is just difficult to liquify no-drop items.
As far as cash lost on death hurting the poorer character over the richer I don’t really think it will be significantly different on average. There could also be a certain number of coins or total value that is not lost on death, only the coinage over that level is lost. In this case the poor would almost be immune. If local banks have a cash limit that they will store for you then really rich players could potentially loose a lot if killed moving from one banking area to another. Poorer characters will likely not max out their local bank unless their limits are very low for not having worked on the local banking faction.
Lastly, death should hurt. Losing wealth can be more painful than losing experience. If we were to tie back to the idea that items are real wealth then we could get back to talking about item decay on death. If every equipped item had a chance to lose 1 durability out of 100 on death, items bellow 50% durability have penalties, and it is very hard or impossible to repair an item then death could be terrifying. The max durability, chance of durability loss on death, and difficulty to repair would need to be scaled to the difficulty to obtain the item. Guilds may actually keep sets of beater gear that you wear when learning a new raid knowing it will take hits that you don’t want to risk your BIS pieces on.
So I would enhance this discussion to include the concept that "How rich do you want to be?" includes the number of BiS items you think you should have, how many of epic abilities your class has access to, how developed your tradeskills are and how full your appearance wardrobe is. All of those are richness values on their own scale.
a bit sidetracking from the original question, but I feel it supports the idea of how you perceive richness with a coinloss on death implemented. It is after all a moneysink.
@iksar: This is one method one could balance things out. "There could also be a certain number of coins or total value that is not lost on death, only the coinage over that level is lost. In this case the poor would almost be immune. "
A simple example would be, that you lose up to 10 gold on death, no matter what player you are. (this becomes out of scale when levels go up)
Most poor people will want to prevent that once they know that is what happens on death. So you'll see poor people carefully banking their savings before going out and meet challenging content.
A rich person wouldn't mind the 10g loss.
Another somewhat more complex example: Coin loss on death is based on highest level that character has. So if you're 10 monk, you might lose a max of 50 silver. That same monk at level 20 might lose a max of 50 gold, and so on.. (scaling how much is lost can differ ofcourse and can be balanced out based on feedback during testing phases).
That same mechanic goes equally if that level 10 monk is a blacksmith of level 50, they will lose coin based on level 50. (obviously this is food for debate, but it's just an example).
You could go even more complex: depending on what level the mob that killed you is, you lose an amount of coin on death accordingly. You die by a level 10 fox? You lose 5 copper. You die from a level 20 wizard, you lose 5 gp. You die from a level 40 orc, you lose 30 goldpieces. I believe that this could really balance the coinloss on death. How difficult this is to implement, I don't know.
I guess I just don't see this as a worthwhile addition to the already extremely adequate penalty for dying. If moneysinks are the desire, then I'd rather they found in other facets of the game.
The amount of risk aversion this would bring (including less inclination to help others in trouble) as well as the added frustrations or downright rage would not at all be good for the game. Death isn't always or even often the fault of the player dying, especially so for a group focused open world game (dying due to mistakes of those outside yourself or own group) that is intended to be challenging.
Barin999 said:Manouk said:Stranger in a strange land. With local banks. Faction will get you in the door, but as a Non-native goods and services will cost you more.
1. I like the concept here, one fear would be, would this create some sort of railroad. Where if you want to go to the dwarves and spent considerable time there, you're kind of obligated to farm for a good standing with the dwarven faction?
It makes sense to me that befriended populations would offer different pricings compared to societies that don't know you very well.
2. Would you accept the idea that it is just not possible to gain good standing with a faction and thus costs would remain high? Or should everything be flexible, where you can mold your standing with that facion enough so that they offer better deals and agree upon an increased value for your goods?
3. Coming from another angle here, what do you think about NPC populations that are not interested in certain goods, because they can't use it or those goods you're offering are coming from an competing or befriended faction? Example: human NPC is not interested in gear that you got by killing elves. OR; halfling NPC is not interested in gear that came from the "disgusting" skar.
1. You're right, it is a bit of a railroad but with the best intentions. The concept is, if you are near or in the dwarven lands you have a macro decision to make; are you staying for a bit to explore and "take in the air" there ? or are you determinedly headed beyond? What is influencing the decision is the created/crucial need to use the bank, the habit. If that is considered a mini-time sink, so be it but I also think it serendipitously solves another social issue of underpopulated starting cities as higher level adventurers, so trained of the necessity of banking will be making frequent short trips to these cities and will have opportunities to socialize. If the player is staying in the area they would work on faction but faction could only go so far. A natural social work-around would be to ask the local newbies to do some selling/buying for you :) for which you would tip and that may be the most coin the newbie has seen in a while and can use (it happened to me).
Some may further Meta that point and just have a newbie Alt in every city for such purposes- how gauche! although understandable, I dont think that's within the spirit of the game.
2 Yes, this is the world limitation that is intended as immersion but may be discerned as another time-sink -OR NOT- depending on perceived value (greed). As a human you may only be able to be tolerated by a certain faction of the Skar. You can just get in the door from doing faction related things and thats it. One shady Merchant to sell/buy with at exhorbitant gouging but its the only game in town (Canada Bill: why do you play this poker game when you know they are all cheating? " it's the only game in town") Likewise the bank charges a transaction fee, each time so your play is different, one large transaction? and no deaths... or snall trasactions and deal with it.
3. OR NOT because? its overcome/afforded by the silk road idea that hopefully is still a thing. Yes the Myr may not like filthy Ogre armor but omgosh how their eyes lit up in seething jealous envy when you flashed that arctic fox pelt cloak (form fitting...and waterproof, too!), or even barbeque sauce using liquid smoke you made- they have never tasted "smoke". So is it worth doing business with the Myr? not really- but it is way more convenient for banking and actually highly lucrative if you have laid some groundwork in faction and bring some liquid smoke to grease the wheels. Get some arctic fox gloves for the inn-keeper (must be crafted) and you'll at least have a place to stay- in the mud, out back, with the mudskippers, but it's safe and you can at least sell and provision up at close to local prices, for that one time. Seaweed salad? Worcestershire sauce? wasabi? never seen this before, I'll pick some up, if the Myr liked the dwarven liquid smoke, I wonder how the dwarves will react to the Myr wasabi.
Xxar said:I want to be rich enough to be able to buy a upgrade and support my character with potions , food or any misc things that come along.
And would you be ok to be not rich enough (yet) to buy those upgrades and support things? In this scenario you need to build up a certain amount of cash, spend it, and some/most of your money went into those things? Putting you back into the scenario of not having enough coin to by the NEXT upgrades and support straight away as you come across them. In this scenario you go from low on money, building up your coinstack, investing, back to being low on money.
Would this be a scenario you wouldn't mind seeing? Or would you prefer to become rich and stay rich? As the money just keeps piling up?
Barin999 said:Xxar said:I want to be rich enough to be able to buy a upgrade and support my character with potions , food or any misc things that come along.
And would you be ok to be not rich enough (yet) to buy those upgrades and support things? In this scenario you need to build up a certain amount of cash, spend it, and some/most of your money went into those things? Putting you back into the scenario of not having enough coin to by the NEXT upgrades and support straight away as you come across them. In this scenario you go from low on money, building up your coinstack, investing, back to being low on money.
Would this be a scenario you wouldn't mind seeing? Or would you prefer to become rich and stay rich? As the money just keeps piling up?
If there are regular required expenses (buying spells/abilities, typical repairs, reagents, etc) then the game should provide enough coin as drops during regular gameplay to pay for this. It does not need to provide so much coin that no expense is ever a burden nor should it have to support a potion habit. Nobody should be forced to stop adventuring to find other ways to make money just to afford to keep adventuring. But nobody should expect to get wealthy without doing those things.
Trying to pre-determine the amount of money each player should be capped at in the game is arbitrary and irrelevant. What matters is the ability for normal players to purchase normal goods, while rare and prestigious items can be purchasable by a small minority of the wealthiest players, or collectively as a guild. So long as there are NPC vendors that buy and sell basic items and commodities the player-to-player prices will always fall between the npc’s buy and sell price. Crafted goods will always trend downward approaching the cost of the inputs for the crafted item as more and more players take up crafting. Sure, if everything NPCs sell costs a few copper, and everyone in the game is running around with platinum - that makes no sense. The flow of coin entering the game should be paced with the costs associated with the adventuring expenses at your current level. IMO the slower the roll out the better. Maybe nobody sees their first silver till like level 20, and then their first gold at 30, and their first plat at 40. Stockpiling coin should not be an issue unless players start hitting max level and running out of things they need to buy before the first content update adds more sinks or a higher tier of coin than plat. Accumulation is not only inevitable in every MMO, for many players it is a large part of their goal. Looking at coin accumulation as a negative is the wrong stance when the real problem is a lack of content to spend coin on. On a side note, it is really important that whatever coin sinks get implemented can’t be dodged by gold farmer/sellers who don’t typically spend coin on non-necessities. Perhaps some kind of transfer tax would help.
Akilae said:If there are regular required expenses (buying spells/abilities, typical repairs, reagents, etc) then the game should provide enough coin as drops during regular gameplay to pay for this. It does not need to provide so much coin that no expense is ever a burden nor should it have to support a potion habit. Nobody should be forced to stop adventuring to find other ways to make money just to afford to keep adventuring. But nobody should expect to get wealthy without doing those things.
I understand and agree with what you're saying. Funds should come from items and not directly from coin. Obtaining coin is a result of sales derived from content consumption.
I wouldn't go as far as to say that if you're suboptimal on liquid funds, you're blocked out of adventuring. I believe it actually stimulates consuming content in whatever fashion you want. How far you can go, is up to what your character is wearing or their skills. In those periods where you've spend most of your liquid assets, on earlier upgrades, you can still adventure, but you'll seek to obtain more sale opportunities (aka sell items for coin) and your work will be rewarded in good time by having enough coin to get those upgrades.
Not to forget that adventuring itself still has the possibility of dropping direct upgrades. That on its own would be a stimulus based on the fact that you're too low on money to just purchase upgrade right off the bat. (if you catch what I'm saying here.) If you're rich all the time this specific stimulus might be much lower.