AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic

762 wrote:

BrainSplitter wrote:

Conflict RP can be done quite tactfully without PvP

As I've done many a time. But as soon as you take PvP out of the picture it becomes meaningless to the point of why bother.

Why? Because conflict RP revolves around THREAT. Remove that and it's all social RP.

If that's the PW you want, giggity.

But that ain't Amia.

Hey, tell you what? You RP your way, without trying to force others to it. Sound good?

That's Amia.

Calm down, 'eh? I'm not telling you how to RP. I'm simply stating that the link you're drawing isn't as necessary as you're advertising it. Nor am I forcing it. Less paranoid, guilty delusions, plz. Yes. PvP is quite necessary in some circumstances. And as you'll likely notice; I was pointing at the groups whom take it to the extreme, as opposed to, say, pointing it at you. Those whom indeed spend their days farming the FGK, practicing/perfecting PvP Technique, and doing nothing but.

You didn't mean us? Okay, my bad. I do farm FGK, and we do practice PvP in an IC fashion, so I just wanted to make sure we we're all cool with that.

I do appreciate you recognize our other RP, though. We work pretty hard at that.

BrainSplitter wrote:

I'd rather not play a Banite, TYVM. I like my conflict, espionage, and mentally stimulating challenges against other players without the dose of PVP Warmongering that's being supported right here.

Oh, and thank you for whatever connotation comes with this, by the way. I'm sure you didn't mean anything by it though.

That one was quite deliberate, actually. You cited the Banites as an example in regards to PvP of that kind and the supposed necessity thereof, and thusly my reply to the suggestion of playing one myself included a response to that very statement. Though I'll admit my wording left plenty to be desired.

Yurell wrote:

Great, so not only do I have comparatively less money than the gold farmer, they actively take my gold? I think that's a terrible idea

There is a reason for that. You know... the gold farmer actually makes an effort to farm gold? It's like saying "Oh, hell, that guy is working, while I am doing nothing. How can he have more money than me? Not fair!" I do think that there should be other ways to make good money other than mindless grinding, i.e the job system, increased faction wages, etc. However, all money that is made must be taken from the existing gold pool in my opinion. If you keep pumping in gold, it's bound to become worthless.

Neso wrote:

Yurell wrote:

Great, so not only do I have comparatively less money than the gold farmer, they actively take my gold? I think that's a terrible idea

There is a reason for that. You know... the gold farmer actually makes an effort to farm gold? It's like saying "Oh, hell, that guy is working, while I am doing nothing. How can he have more money than me? Not fair!" I do think that there should be other ways to make good money other than mindless grinding, i.e the job system, increased faction wages, etc. However, all money that is made must be taken from the existing gold pool in my opinion. If you keep pumping in gold, it's bound to become worthless.

The gold farmer could farm till his brain dripped out his nose I believe, if they rped the entire affair and a had a reasonable RP explanation for why the monsters and bosses he killed ten minutes ago are back. Again. I believe the big issue is that most gold farmers do not RP what they are doing, and rather run about doing it, saying nothing, or spouting party nonsense, with no RP to back it up in the slightest.

Least thats the feeling I'm getting as to why gold farmers need a wee kick in the ass.

Neso wrote:

Yurell wrote:

Great, so not only do I have comparatively less money than the gold farmer, they actively take my gold? I think that's a terrible idea

There is a reason for that. You know... the gold farmer actually makes an effort to farm gold? It's like saying "Oh, hell, that guy is working, while I am doing nothing. How can he have more money than me? Not fair!" I do think that there should be other ways to make good money other than mindless grinding, i.e the job system, increased faction wages, etc. However, all money that is made must be taken from the existing gold pool in my opinion. If you keep pumping in gold, it's bound to become worthless.

When I buy an ice cream, I don't get you to a portion of the cost. Your suggestion means the poor get poorer as the rich get richer ... those who farm for gold sell objects at a greater rate, meaning they'd be constantly actively taking money from lowbies, who likely wouldn't be able to replace the money fast enough.

Yurell wrote:

When I buy an ice cream, I don't get you to a portion of the cost. Your suggestion means the poor get poorer as the rich get richer ... those who farm for gold sell objects at a greater rate, meaning they'd be constantly actively taking money from lowbies, who likely wouldn't be able to replace the money fast enough.

It's useless to apply real life scenarios to this problem, as it is not one that can be solved using such. Yes, when you buy an ice cream, the rest of us are unaffected. But on the other hand, how often does your character pay for ice cream in Amia? Or any food for that matter? How often does he pay rent, taxes? It's not logical that all of us lose money when people sell stuff, no. But it is logical that one has living expenses, and everyone could pretend that these losses are those living expenses, for the sake of cutting the inflow of gold off. And if you're concerned about lowbies, then simply add a level multiplier. Higher levels pay more, lower levels pay less.

The alternatives to this are, that I can see:

1. Keep the economy as it is (Possibly make some minor changes like caps, which is only a temporary fix). The outcome is that inflation hits the sky.

2. Remove looting. This would cut the inflow of gold off, make the game less fun, make it more difficult for lowbies as they would need to make money in other ways.

Or do you have any other suggestions?

Numerous and less drastic, which I have made in various topics, while requesting for more information as to the current economic state. Your idea for a system where everything sold takes gold off everyone else simply means you have two types of people - those with gold (and a lot of it) and those without (and by without I mean none - a few thousand)

Yurell wrote:

Numerous and less drastic, which I have made in various topics, while requesting for more information as to the current economic state. Your idea for a system where everything sold takes gold off everyone else simply means you have two types of people - those with gold (and a lot of it) and those without (and by without I mean none - a few thousand)

There is no less drastic suggestion that actually fixes this. The only real fix is to have a "fixed" gold pool, i.e no new gold coming in. If you have suggested something that does this, please direct me to it so that I may read your suggestion.

There is no fix.

There is however a fix to the disparity between Casters and everyone else.

Gold cost per spell please.

Hmm. I've revised my suggestion. Here is the new one:

Let's say that the team decides that there are 2 000 000 000 gold coins in circulation on Amia. Carl has 50 000 000 gold, while Jenkin has 5 000.
This means that Carl has 2,5% of the total wealth on Amia, while Jenkin has 0,00025%.

Now, Angela sells her greatsword for 50 000 coins. 2,5% of this amount (1250 coins) gets subtracted from Carl's wealth, while 0,00025% (0,125 coins) get taken from Jenkin.

Even if a thousand of those greatswords were sold per day, Carl would still only lose 125 gold coins. This is not even remotely faster than he can replace it.

Yurell wrote:

Yossarin wrote:

That won't do it. I've already spelled out what will, and it doesn't involve a cull to 500k.

Can you provide a link?

----

Yossarin wrote:

there is only one fix to the Amian economy, and that is a very unpopular and draconian restructuring of the module's entire loot fixation. It means drastically lowering the loot drop percentage, and possibly taking magical loot out of the hands of NPC merchants altogether, completely privatizing the sale and trade of magical items (from +1 weapons and armors all the way up to epic loot) into the hands of the players (or DMs, during DM events or special, random merchants at different times). It would also mean slicing everyone's current gold hoards down to a bare fraction of what they are, with some kind of compensation to those who are losing significant amounts.

Yossarin wrote:

As far as taxes go, an income-based tax would be disastrous and unmanageable, because you cannot effectively measure taxable income.

A trade tax would be silly and unnecessary. They exist, we just don't figure it in, or pretend its already figured in.

A sales tax is very easy to implement.

Yossarin wrote:

I started off the idea that what is, at ground level, absolutely necessary is a means of "bleeding off" the excess money. Meaning, more things to spend it on. And getting as creative and innovative with that idea as possible. The money must leave the player economy and disappear altogether in order to control that inflation. And this can be done without negatively impacting the poor and the lowbies

Haven't been able to find the quote where someone (pretty sure it was Tormak) basically said 'the playerbase will never let it happen'.

Those are outdated, after examination and experimentation. I do believe that there is a fix, but it requires an extremely dramatic overhaul of the server's entire economic system from the ground up that would have no IC explanation, would be detrimental to players who like things the way they are, and would cost the server players. It doesn't involve complicated math or taxation, it doesn't really involve obliterating the gold stores of existing PCs unless absolutely necessary (willing incentives to do so are preferred), and doesn't involve extreme micromanagement of incoming and outgoing.

It will, however, severely impact the typical equipment players have been used to finding, using, and making for the past five years, the "process" of hunt/loot/purchase that may require a handful of spinning changes to other things because I'm not Alan Greenspan and I can't foresee everything.

Surely there are people who amass millions and then stop playing Amia. I wonder how much gold is lost to attrition? Otherwise it sounds like we're just going to have to deal with it. I'm prepared. I got rid of all my character's gold except for a little chump-change and haven't been inconvenienced for it.

Quote:

Haven't been able to find the quote where someone (pretty sure it was Tormak) basically said 'the playerbase will never let it happen'.

Just read Gurth and Neso's posts. The bossfarmers are so attached to their endless routine and 'authority' gained by controlling the economy they will never cede it. Ever. Not unless it is forcibly taken from them.

762 wrote:

giggity.

I second that.

TormakSaber wrote:

Quote:

Haven't been able to find the quote where someone (pretty sure it was Tormak) basically said 'the playerbase will never let it happen'.

Just read Gurth and Neso's posts. The bossfarmers are so attached to their endless routine and 'authority' gained by controlling the economy they will never cede it. Ever. Not unless it is forcibly taken from them.

That makes....absolutely zero sense.

Really, Tormak. Don't ever think you can get inside my head.

Don't start into it, Gurth.

Not starting anything. Just don't go grouping me into this monolithic bossfarmer group with identical motivations.

Every boss farmer eventually succumbs to boredom or death. I suspect scurvy.

You still have to wonder how much gold is just sitting in the inventory of characters that people don't use.

I was wondering, does anybody ever look to see if someone has 12 characters, and only play 1, but the other 11 have 0 gold? or some really low number? Because I'm pretty sure the characters I don't play anymore have more gold combined than the characters I do play.

D-Finitiy wrote:

Every boss farmer eventually succumbs to boredom or death. I suspect scurvy.

You still have to wonder how much gold is just sitting in the inventory of characters that people don't use.

I was wondering, does anybody ever look to see if someone has 12 characters, and only play 1, but the other 11 have 0 gold? or some really low number? Because I'm pretty sure the characters I don't play anymore have more gold combined than the characters I do play.

What, you mean people mule over? Could be so...yes. But i know for a fact that DM's can track gold... to an extent. (NO spoiler here, nekhy told me. So do not flame me, DM team)

As a former (not Ex) DM I know that it would be possible to track the gold.

As for the Gold sitting on accounts. I know in my own case, it's basically purpose set, aside from a small bit in Tuomas' case, and not much more in Vael's.

Two characters amidst many though.

I think we might be underestimating how much gold is just sitting there doing nothing.

TormakSaber wrote:

Just read Gurth and Neso's posts. The bossfarmers are so attached to their endless routine and 'authority' gained by controlling the economy they will never cede it. Ever. Not unless it is forcibly taken from them.

Wait... Did I misunderstand this post or are you calling me a bossfarmer?

I don't think "bossfarmer" should be some term used to clank down on players. If they want to spend their time running bosses, it's their choice.
I know gurth have a good reason to do such, he's basically equipping an entire faction. That's damn hard...

Very_Svensk wrote:

I don't think "bossfarmer" should be some term used to clank down on players. If they want to spend their time running bosses, it's their choice.
I know gurth have a good reason to do such, he's basically equipping an entire faction. That's damn hard...

It's not the fact that he called me a bossfarmer, per say. I am just shocked at how he deduced that from my posts in this thread. I mean, you've read the same posts that he has, have you not? Where in my suggestions would you find something to lead you to that assumption? I am very confused as to why my name was dropped. Especially since me and 762 have displayed somewhat conflicting views in this thread. Why did we get grouped together? (Note: I don't have anything against 762. It's just that Tormak's post utterly confoozled me.)

I don't see any problems in the economy, but also - I do not have the big picture.

I have no personal grief against bossfarmers or loot farmers. If they wish to waste their time grinding instead of RPing I could care less......

But I have an urge to strangle the people who keep insisting upon gold for spells...lol

Cause I don't grind, if spells did cost money, I'd be one useless mage.

I shouldn't have to pay all my money just so some other rich characters could lose half theirs.

Geld Yaztran wrote:

I have no personal grief against bossfarmers or loot farmers. If they wish to waste their time grinding instead of RPing I could care less......

But I have an urge to strangle the people who keep insisting upon gold for spells...lol

Cause I don't grind, if spells did cost money, I'd be one useless mage.

I shouldn't have to pay all my money just so some other rich characters could lose half theirs.

Man, I agree with this. Bubbles has never had more than she has right now, which is about 80k? Feeling super rich with her at the moment, lol. I don't want to be penalized for the fact that a lot of mages on the server are stupid rich. That just ain't fair to me or other players of mages like her.

There are actually a little few of us who opt for RP over grinding.

However I agree with Gurth's and other faction leaders need for such.

And no offense....it's been a long time since I have disagreed with a DM in such a general way.....

...but the housing is WAAAAAYYYY too expensive. It's pricing alone would have to compel me to hunt non stop for hours and days on end. Since I am not a bossfarmer, I don't get to have all those millions people can spend on a single month.

In a sense, houses can only be rented by grinding bossfarmers....but not by people who spend more time RPing than grinding.

Geld Yaztran wrote:

In a sense, houses can only be rented by grinding bossfarmers....but not by people who spend more time RPing than grinding.

Not true, you just have to be more creative in order to afford a house, I know of two characters who had houses (one with the large one) who hardly ever went out to "grind"

Neso wrote:

Very_Svensk wrote:

I don't think "bossfarmer" should be some term used to clank down on players. If they want to spend their time running bosses, it's their choice.
I know gurth have a good reason to do such, he's basically equipping an entire faction. That's damn hard...

It's not the fact that he called me a bossfarmer, per say. I am just shocked at how he deduced that from my posts in this thread. I mean, you've read the same posts that he has, have you not? Where in my suggestions would you find something to lead you to that assumption? I am very confused as to why my name was dropped. Especially since me and 762 have displayed somewhat conflicting views in this thread. Why did we get grouped together? (Note: I don't have anything against 762. It's just that Tormak's post utterly confoozled me.)

Past posts in economy threads. The ones against almost always tend to be either bossfarmers or the gold megagiants, and they control all levels of the economy, from the high to the low. Of course they don't want to lose that power.

TormakSaber wrote:

Past posts in economy threads. The ones against almost always tend to be either bossfarmers or the gold megagiants, and they control all levels of the economy, from the high to the low. Of course they don't want to lose that power.

I'm going to assume that I misunderstood you, as I have been advocating change in this thread. Change that does not benefit the "ones that hold all the money".

Neso wrote:

TormakSaber wrote:

Past posts in economy threads. The ones against almost always tend to be either bossfarmers or the gold megagiants, and they control all levels of the economy, from the high to the low. Of course they don't want to lose that power.

I'm going to assume that I misunderstood you, as I have been advocating change in this thread. Change that does not benefit the "ones that hold all the money".

Really? I thought your suggestion for the past page was very advantageous to the rich, taking money off the poor. There will be two types of people - ones selling loot faster than they lose gold, and they'll be exceptionally rich. The other type will be selling it slower than the lose gold, and they shall naturally end up with no gold.

Yurell wrote:

Really? I thought your suggestion for the past page was very advantageous to the rich, taking money off the poor. There will be two types of people - ones selling loot faster than they lose gold, and they'll be exceptionally rich. The other type will be selling it slower than the lose gold, and they shall naturally end up with no gold.

Allow me to quote myself.

Neso wrote:

Hmm. I've revised my suggestion. Here is the new one:

Let's say that the team decides that there are 2 000 000 000 gold coins in circulation on Amia. Carl has 50 000 000 gold, while Jenkin has 5 000.
This means that Carl has 2,5% of the total wealth on Amia, while Jenkin has 0,00025%.

Now, Angela sells her greatsword for 50 000 coins. 2,5% of this amount (1250 coins) gets subtracted from Carl's wealth, while 0,00025% (0,125 coins) get taken from Jenkin.

Even if a thousand of those greatswords were sold per day, Carl would still only lose 125 gold coins. This is not even remotely faster than he can replace it.

As you can see from the above suggestion, it is WAY more punishing to be rich than to be poor. The above would discourage having obscene amounts of money, because you would lose it so fast, it would not even be funny. And if it discourages having uneeded money, it discourages grinding for loot.

Neso wrote:

Yurell wrote:

Really? I thought your suggestion for the past page was very advantageous to the rich, taking money off the poor. There will be two types of people - ones selling loot faster than they lose gold, and they'll be exceptionally rich. The other type will be selling it slower than the lose gold, and they shall naturally end up with no gold.

Allow me to quote myself.

Neso wrote:

Hmm. I've revised my suggestion. Here is the new one:

Let's say that the team decides that there are 2 000 000 000 gold coins in circulation on Amia. Carl has 50 000 000 gold, while Jenkin has 5 000.
This means that Carl has 2,5% of the total wealth on Amia, while Jenkin has 0,00025%.

Now, Angela sells her greatsword for 50 000 coins. 2,5% of this amount (1250 coins) gets subtracted from Carl's wealth, while 0,00025% (0,125 coins) get taken from Jenkin.

Even if a thousand of those greatswords were sold per day, Carl would still only lose 125 gold coins. This is not even remotely faster than he can replace it.

As you can see from the above suggestion, it is WAY more punishing to be rich than to be poor. The above would discourage having obscene amounts of money, because you would lose it so fast, it would not even be funny. And if it discourages having uneeded money, it discourages grinding for loot.

Except that the rich will be the ones doing the vast majority of the selling.

TormakSaber wrote:

Past posts in economy threads. The ones against almost always tend to be either bossfarmers or the gold megagiants, and they control all levels of the economy, from the high to the low. Of course they don't want to lose that power.

I think that's a good point. It's not like the economy is teetering on a precipice. It is very stable for the same reason that people don't think the gold megagiants are playing fair. I'm personally ok with how the economy is because I choose not to get involved with the gold part of it, and it saves me having to do a lot of math. On a small enough scale, new players wouldn't even notice a problem with it until they wanted to buy an epic weapon for 100,000 gold, and by then they're probably (hopefully) hooked enough to do go a little boss looting for themselves.

Speaking of which, Yossarin's guide to fair market prices is always handy if you're not sure.

Yurell wrote:

Except that the rich will be the ones doing the vast majority of the selling.

To what end? What good does it do you to sell further loot, when you lose about 1 milion gp a day?

Please. You are not losing 1 mil GP a day. That is a HUGE exaggeration.

Closed economy is a terrible idea.

TormakSaber wrote:

Please. You are not losing 1 mil GP a day. That is a HUGE exaggeration.

If 1000 of 50 000 gp items were sold per day (I'm not sure how much actually gets sold, but this is what I used in my example. And yes, it is probably a huge exaggeration, but I used it to demonstrate how very little the poor actually lose even with such obscene amount of loot sold.) the 50 milion GP character loses 1 250 000 gp. We can do a more realistic number. Let's say that 5 milion gp worth of loot gets sold every day (which is still an over estimation, I think). The rich character still loses 125 000 gp, while a character that might have a fairly low amount of money, like let's say around 50 000, would only lose 125 gp. Do you see now, that the hit on those who do not farm would be very minimal? Is that not a price we would be willing to pay for a regulated economy, where there is only a set amount in existance that is very much controllable by the DM team?

MoshingChris wrote:

Closed economy is a terrible idea.

Since you do not seem to think it be a good idea to elaborate, allow me to do so on why I feel the opposite instead then. As the current system stands (As will any other that is not closed), EVERY single time you sell something to the NPC traders you actually create new gold and pump it into circulation, because the NPCs have limitless amounts of money that come from nowhere. Now, when you create gold from nothing, you effectively lower the purchasing power of the existing gold pool, which only means one thing: higher prices. Now, since only player-sold items increase in price, this means that you now have to grind for even more loot to be able to afford them. I think we all agree that this is bad, and I believe that what I suggested would be a very small price to pay to avoid that. One that could represent various living expenses of the PCs.

Tell me, how would this idea be so terrible?

I'd link to the previous 4 threads on this topic, but almost all of them were lost in the Great Server Migration of 2010. Except this one.

A single bandaid solution will never work.
A steady constant monitoring and futzing about will be required.

Gold sinks are only as tenable as long as something to spend it on remains true. The true problem is there is nothing inspiring people to purchase once they've met a set level of gear, or money is unable to purchase something which is worthwhile, it is only available through a barter economy.

With level caps and gear caps, you can do so much, and so little, this is one of the ways other games have delt with things. (Mudflation) basically the price for new tiers gets raised to whatever is needed to 'reset' the economy, be it monster gold drops, etc etc.

I don't even care about Balancing the economy. All i care about, at this moment, is balancing the disparity between casters and non-casters in terms of the outflow of gold. Which has an easy fix of charging a gold cost per spell use representative of spell components etc.

Even then the disparity is still massive.

At 1 gp x Spell Level x Caster level it would only cost a Cleric approximately 6000 - 10000gp to solo spires. I'm not even talking about a Dev Cleric Powerbuild here, but my Pure Caster Cleric.

As it stands it costs a weapon master 30k - 40k to do the same thing, at a much slower rate of knots.

I'll push the spell cost idea til the day I leave the server.

The only problem with that is that the D&D rulebooks specifically state that mages and clerics spell components are a negligible cost unless otherwise dictated in the spell description (a la Gate spell). It may work, it may not... but the question arises: If a bit of ordinary string costs the mage 100 gold, how can a commoner afford to clothe themselves?

Basically, it could be a fix, but it would be a completely OOC fix to an IC problem. Something that, in my mind, is better avoided.

Its called Homebrew.

PnP clause in this case doesn't fit a persistent environment where the characters are competing against one another since in PnP there is generally no free market and a DM controlling or overseeing every action the players character makes.

Just because you use a piece of string for a spell in pnp doesn't mean we have to abide by the piece of string on Amia.

Okay, here's a question - fireball does exactly the same damage whether I'm lvl 15 or lvl 30 ... why should it cost me more at lvl 30 than at lvl 15?

You mean the same question you asked me on MSN and I said to you thats just a minor detail and that Spell Level x Caster Level wasn't the only solution, just that the numbers that came out of it made sense balancewise. Oneupmanship is pretty pathetic when i already answered the question.

The loose answer of the top of my head?

Better chance of overcoming Spell Resistance directly related to higher rates of expenditure on higher quality components that the mage identifies.

The fact is I don't see you Yurell actually coming up with a single suggestion in any of these threads. All you do is stonewall and argue until nothing gets done.

MoshingChris wrote:

You mean the same question you asked me on MSN and I said to you thats just a minor detail and that Spell Level x Caster Level wasn't the only solution, just that the numbers that came out of it made sense balancewise. Oneupmanship is pretty pathetic when i already answered the question.

My Question:
*Nod* A question - why is it, ICly, that a 10d6 fireball woud cost more at 30 than it would at 10, despite being otherwise identical?

Your response:
Oh thats not set in stone
More reagents would be the nominal answer
But yeah i get the point
Since spell damage is capped

So no, you didn't answer it over MSN, you avoided answering, so before attacking someone make sure you're not openly lying. You only gave a nominal answer which was 'handwave' ... you didn't even explain why the exact same spell would require more components. If you wish it, I will publish the log of that entire conversation on the open forum to demonstrate that at no point did you answer it.
Log starts 2010/04/19 02:37:54 , log ends 2010/04/19 05:00:27.

MoshingChris wrote:

The loose answer of the top of my head?

Better chance of overcoming Spell Resistance directly related to higher rates of expenditure on higher quality components that the mage identifies.

Thank you for giving me an answer.

MoshingChris wrote:

The fact is I don't see you Yurell actually coming up with a single suggestion in any of these threads. All you do is stonewall and argue until nothing gets done.

I don't need to come up with a solution to dislike another. I have every right to voice my opinion unless a member of the DM team comes down and tells me to stop unless I post a suggestion of my own.

Go ahead Publish. Theres nothing that I need to hide because I'm a transparent positive individual. Who doesn't keep MSN logs :lol:

I specifically stated I answered the question that the reason, was a minor detail. I never said otherwise.

ergo

Quote:

You mean the same question you asked me on MSN and I said to you thats just a minor detail

I fully admit I didn't have anything more than a handwave answer as you put it, just that it was the best answer to fixing the disparity between caster and non-caster classes in my opinion.

Mo money, mo problems

Who is online