+ Reply to Thread
Page 40 of 40 FirstFirst ... 30 38 39 40
Results 391 to 397 of 397

Thread: Here's why server merges help casual players more than they think and stabilizes the economy.

  1. #391
    Senior Member Rekikyo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    2,435
    Quote Originally Posted by Delaque View Post
    So first off the event Trion put in didn't change much heck it may have made it worse. Sure the regrade event gave people incentives to use gold but guess what the castaway strait event put more gold into the economy then what was taken out. The land barons you are talking about that will lose chests of stuff can just put it on one of their many alts. People shouldn't have so much land that they need multiple alts to keep taxes down. The only suggestion you have made is to reduce the overall income of all gold making methods this will do nothing in the whole it will just be the same situation just reflected on a smaller scale there will still be inflation because the free farm servers will be making more gold than non free farm servers.
    Have you ever considered that perhaps the game is working as designed, as far as taxes and buildings go?

    Try fitting all these item mall boosted houses and workshops and storage towers on one account. I'm pretty sure even Koreans at this point are investing in secondary phone numbers to access a second account to store all these houses.

    The game is definitely encouraging glutted land ownership, even without Trion's lax account policies.

  2. #392
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    568
    Quote Originally Posted by PooperJackson View Post
    You can't just blanket nerf the payouts of events like DGS and call it a day. Those are balanced to pay out according to them being contested and what not. So if you nerf the payout, one server who fights over it every day gets heavily screwed over while another server free farming it won't care as much.

    If Trion is capable of adjusting the payouts of events on a server by server basis based on population, that would be very interesting. So DGS is less valuable on Ollo than it is on other servers.
    On the other hand, you can't just blanket remove events like DGS on all servers except for one, presumably controlled by Disaster either. With the gear scores what they are today any newer competition will never be able to catch up, unless you think Trion giving out gear is a good thing. (And I'm a low gs person that dislikes being handed gear for nothing.)

    Yes, I'm coming at this from a potato and anti-merge perspective, but only because IMO more servers actually works in my favor to make it easier for me and all other "potatoes" if they want to, to gear up and learn advanced stuff in easier settings rather than get thrown into the top dog server to sink or swim. Or just remain a potato with nobody caring - if someone wants to free farm a server to be the highest gs potato, good for them I guess, unless they're preventing a new player from enjoying the game.

    That said, I like your ending statement. Another idea might be they spawn less often based on population.

    Honestly though it might be really cool if payout could be scaled, similar to MMOs where killing a level 25 mob when you're level 20 gives you a larger reward than killing that same mob when you're level 30. If everyone in your raid is Xk+ gs, you get no reward for the kill. If one person is below, you get 1/x of max payout, which goes straight to that person. If everyone is below Xk gs, you get bonus payout. THEN I would agree with the suggestion of a "more PvP" server, and on this server event payout is always max, boom competition. New competition free farms up and jumps into the PvP server or maybe stays behind to help train new players. Tweak from there?

  3. #393
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    568
    Quote Originally Posted by ThaneKri0s View Post
    On some servers, no, there is no risk.
    Humans seem to have this thing about not liking risk. They go out of their way to minimize or negate risk as much as possible - if the risk is too great, people will do something that is safe for less profit. Or they will try the risk but at a certain point losses will cause a change.

    Increasing risk on delivering packs really hurts the little guy the most. Somebody in the top 10 gs on their server has much less worry about risk than a new player. I would venture that Disaster could drive a loaded merchant around in circles in the middle of the ocean on a populated server at primetime if they really wanted to. Increase the risk too much and the little guy will quit or do safe runs which will take him much longer to save up for competitive gear and when he realizes how long it will take him to even catch up to what competitive is now he might quit anyway. Neither option is good for new players or old players.

    Overall, while it IS true that trade packs are technically inflating the economy as well by popping gold out of thin air, you're going to hurt the little player a lot more than an experienced player. Which, 1 isn't the problem (it's inflation from high-level events), and 2 killing off new and low gs players should be an obvious problem for multiple reasons (one might even say that we're here because they got killed off, if you look at things a certain way).

  4. #394
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    397
    Quote Originally Posted by Lukealex View Post
    Humans seem to have this thing about not liking risk. They go out of their way to minimize or negate risk as much as possible - if the risk is too great, people will do something that is safe for less profit. Or they will try the risk but at a certain point losses will cause a change.

    Increasing risk on delivering packs really hurts the little guy the most. Somebody in the top 10 gs on their server has much less worry about risk than a new player. I would venture that Disaster could drive a loaded merchant around in circles in the middle of the ocean on a populated server at primetime if they really wanted to. Increase the risk too much and the little guy will quit or do safe runs which will take him much longer to save up for competitive gear and when he realizes how long it will take him to even catch up to what competitive is now he might quit anyway. Neither option is good for new players or old players.

    Overall, while it IS true that trade packs are technically inflating the economy as well by popping gold out of thin air, you're going to hurt the little player a lot more than an experienced player. Which, 1 isn't the problem (it's inflation from high-level events), and 2 killing off new and low gs players should be an obvious problem for multiple reasons (one might even say that we're here because they got killed off, if you look at things a certain way).
    Inflation hurts the little player the most by making their "safe" way of making gold more of a time sink than a gold making venture, where the low/mid tier gear and items are driven up in cost, because gold value goes lower and lower, the the gold that they can make doesn't go as far.
    Thane
    <Disaster>
    WORLD CHAMP

  5. #395
    Senior Member Herzeleid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Orchidna
    Posts
    924
    Quote Originally Posted by Delaque View Post
    So first off the event Trion put in didn't change much heck it may have made it worse. Sure the regrade event gave people incentives to use gold but guess what the castaway strait event put more gold into the economy then what was taken out. The land barons you are talking about that will lose chests of stuff can just put it on one of their many alts. People shouldn't have so much land that they need multiple alts to keep taxes down. The only suggestion you have made is to reduce the overall income of all gold making methods this will do nothing in the whole it will just be the same situation just reflected on a smaller scale there will still be inflation because the free farm servers will be making more gold than non free farm servers.
    Actually I think players should have just as much land as they want to have. it doesn't hurt anyone that people can freely customize "their" corner of the map and I can't find any reason why anyone would find this inconvenient. I don't think Taxes were meant to add the "impossible" to players owning land, it is just a means to ensure that there is a limit and a scaling sort of payment in order to not let a limited resource (land) being occupied by just a small number of people.

    But then it's this: limited resource. It is limited because physically maps can't be infinite and because housing areas can be a burden to most computers.
    But in time this has changed. Land is still, technically, limited, but with the expanding of the game itself the limits have been pushed a lot and have made it a lot more accessible to everyone, to the point that: there was no more need for exclusive luxury housing areas, areas aren't crowded anymore and can easily make space for larger properties (with the addition of p2w scarecrows & gazebo, 28 treehouses and additional mansions) and players can more easily expand their properties because their neighbors are not as desperate to hold on to the their lands.
    Lands have lost the value they had in the beginning and that's not a bad thing. Too many people are left with the headstart mindset that if you see a 16x16 unoccupied something is weird and unusual and people who own a lot of land are somehow stealing the possibility from others...
    Proud green pirate, fervent activist of the Tumbleweed Nerf Society

  6. #396
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    954
    Quote Originally Posted by Herzeleid View Post
    Actually I think players should have just as much land as they want to have. it doesn't hurt anyone that people can freely customize "their" corner of the map and I can't find any reason why anyone would find this inconvenient. I don't think Taxes were meant to add the "impossible" to players owning land, it is just a means to ensure that there is a limit and a scaling sort of payment in order to not let a limited resource (land) being occupied by just a small number of people.

    But then it's this: limited resource. It is limited because physically maps can't be infinite and because housing areas can be a burden to most computers.
    But in time this has changed. Land is still, technically, limited, but with the expanding of the game itself the limits have been pushed a lot and have made it a lot more accessible to everyone, to the point that: there was no more need for exclusive luxury housing areas, areas aren't crowded anymore and can easily make space for larger properties (with the addition of p2w scarecrows & gazebo, 28 treehouses and additional mansions) and players can more easily expand their properties because their neighbors are not as desperate to hold on to the their lands.
    Lands have lost the value they had in the beginning and that's not a bad thing. Too many people are left with the headstart mindset that if you see a 16x16 unoccupied something is weird and unusual and people who own a lot of land are somehow stealing the possibility from others...
    More of a reason to downsize servers to accommodate the lower population

  7. #397
    Senior Member Kylieslater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    458
    Quote Originally Posted by ThaneKri0s View Post
    Inflation hurts the little player the most by making their "safe" way of making gold more of a time sink than a gold making venture, where the low/mid tier gear and items are driven up in cost, because gold value goes lower and lower, the the gold that they can make doesn't go as far.
    Them making no money from packs at all isn't going to help at all. There has to be some other way to curb inflation or to increase the value of the currency.
    There is a lot of talk about how to fix the economy inflation but keep in mind we are where we are today because of an event.

    Regrade event a little while ago removed money from the game like there was no tomorrow. And after that everyone was broke and value of things went down due to less gold floating around. However the event that followed was the as I like to call it "pick money up off the ocean floor" And many people did that to great effect. Collecting 15k gold in a time frame that they would usually only collected 5k (at most) from larders or whatever. Since that event costs have stayed much higher. But in all honesty I see events driving the market demand more then anything else at this point.

    While we are on this topic of merging and while you are getting heated on either side of the argument. Consider how many people are likely to quit over having to go through a merger again? How many are likely to quite in x number of days if mergers don't happen. How many are likely to quit anyways and may or may not use the merge as an excuse. People's reasons for quitting (or even just quitting patron) can be as simple as support being unwilling to help in a hacked account situation. If too many people get the impression that support isn't willing to help protect their investment then well... You get the idea.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 40 of 40 FirstFirst ... 30 38 39 40

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts