42 replies to this topic

[Jack BeFLippen]

TheRulesLawyer, on 12 December 2011 - 12:52 PM, said:

Simple. They just have someone play pvp. If there is a way to transfer cbills, there will be gold farmers in the game.

If you want to help a friend get a new mech, etc I'm sure there will be in game currency that you can only gain by buying it with real money. No harm in transferring that between people as it will be impossible to farm.

you are limiting the games dynamics, every game will have someone trying to write a script for it. why not a headshot script for this game?
dont ruin a simple logistic dynamic because your worried about one aspect being exploited.

the reason this game will be fun i hope is that it will have a live player run market system much akin to EVE ONLINE.

[Jack BeFLippen]

Should select "ComStar Agents" have access to these HPGmails and wire transfers?

this would bring a VERY INTERESTING dynamic....EVERY ONE BEINGING TO CODE IN GAME EMAILs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HAHAHA


I would LOVE to see this.

[TheRulesLawyer]

Jack BeFLippen, on 12 December 2011 - 01:10 PM, said:

you are limiting the games dynamics, every game will have someone trying to write a script for it. why not a headshot script for this game?
dont ruin a simple logistic dynamic because your worried about one aspect being exploited.

the reason this game will be fun i hope is that it will have a live player run market system much akin to EVE ONLINE.

It wont ruin dynamics. You can still have an economy and contracts. It will just be through an NPC intermediary. You talk about aim bots. Give the gold farmers a profit motive to use them, and free accounts that effectively can't be banned and have the makings of a very bad situation. I'd rather deal with a slightly limited transaction model than play regularly with the gold farmers.

[Tweaks]

I agree with TheRulesLawyer on this. We'll have enough people cheating their way to the top as it is (every fps-type game has some whether we want it or not) that they don't need an incentive to do it on top of it!

Allowing wire transfers, for one, will encourage C-Bill farming and external transactions that PGI won't be able to control, and that means PGI will lose money (since C-Bills will probably be purchasable as part of the F2P content).

I really doubt they will go in that direction, and sure hope they won't.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Tweaks, on 12 December 2011 - 02:46 PM, said:

Allowing wire transfers, for one, will encourage C-Bill farming and external transactions that PGI won't be able to control, and that means PGI will lose money (since C-Bills will probably be purchasable as part of the F2P content).

PGI ComStar could "tax" c-bill transfers and charge an actual cash fee to the sender, in proportion to the amount of c-bills being transferred. This will make illicit sales-by-wire less profitable and PGI would profit from any farming activity that does happen.


EDIT: Free-to-play, pay-to-utilize-extraneous-and-not-really-necessary-features

Edited by Prosperity Park, 12 December 2011 - 04:06 PM.

[Black Sunder]

Tweaks, on 12 December 2011 - 02:46 PM, said:

Allowing wire transfers, for one, will encourage C-Bill farming and external transactions that PGI won't be able to control, and that means PGI will lose money (since C-Bills will probably be purchasable as part of the F2P content).

If C-bills are purchasable with real money. that sets a baseline for RMT people that have to beat in price. Do people pay a 3rd party for C-bills or do they go with PGI and know their money is safe? But then that gets into pay to win which PGI has already said they are not doing.

Limiting people's ability to interact is bad. Before you cry foul, yes you are limiting interaction. I would love to have the ability to give a friend a mech or C-bills if it helps them get off to a faster start so they don't start slow like I did.

[Tweaks]

Prosperity Park, on 12 December 2011 - 03:32 PM, said:

PGI ComStar could "tax" c-bill transfers and charge an actual cash fee to the sender, in proportion to the amount of c-bills being transferred. This will make illicit sales-by-wire less profitable and PGI would profit from any farming activity that does happen.


EDIT: Free-to-play, pay-to-utilize-extraneous-and-not-really-necessary-features

Black Sunder, on 12 December 2011 - 03:54 PM, said:

If C-bills are purchasable with real money. that sets a baseline for RMT people that have to beat in price. Do people pay a 3rd party for C-bills or do they go with PGI and know their money is safe? But then that gets into pay to win which PGI has already said they are not doing.

Limiting people's ability to interact is bad. Before you cry foul, yes you are limiting interaction. I would love to have the ability to give a friend a mech or C-bills if it helps them get off to a faster start so they don't start slow like I did.

You both missed the point.

Let's say PGI sells C-Bills at about $30 US for 2,000,000 C-Bills, and that a wealthy and dominant Merc Corp is able to get more than that a day, easily. What stops them from selling it via a 3rd party system at a fraction of the price PGI sells it?

That means PGI would be losing a great amount of potential income. Don't forget they won't have monthly-fees as a base income, and will only be relying on what players are willing to pay for in order to maintain their services and pay their servers and staff. I don't think they can afford such a risk. Adding a transaction tax wouldn't cover for that potential loss (although they should do it regardless).

They have to be very careful with the way they implement C-Bill transactions, if they ever do, for this reason alone. I don't give a frack whether or not this is "limiting game dynamics". I prefer to have a controlled and locked-down system rather than to risk having C-Bill farmers.

I'm sure they will implement some sort of "salary" or "profit sharing" system for Merc Corps so they can pay their mercenaries, but I'm sure (well, I hope) it will be restricted and made in such a way that one wouldn't be able to join a Merc Corp for 5 minutes, the time it takes to receive a payment, and then quit...

If anything, I guess they could allow for a very limited system where a player would only be able to transfer a certain amount of C-Bills a day (much like ATM daily withdrawal limits), and limit the amount of transactions that player could do in a row with the same player. However, even then, it would have to be heavily monitored for abuse.

Edited by Tweaks, 12 December 2011 - 04:43 PM.

[TheRulesLawyer]

Black Sunder, on 12 December 2011 - 03:54 PM, said:

If C-bills are purchasable with real money. that sets a baseline for RMT people that have to beat in price. Do people pay a 3rd party for C-bills or do they go with PGI and know their money is safe? But then that gets into pay to win which PGI has already said they are not doing.

Limiting people's ability to interact is bad. Before you cry foul, yes you are limiting interaction. I would love to have the ability to give a friend a mech or C-bills if it helps them get off to a faster start so they don't start slow like I did.

There are probably several currencies.
Cbills- the in game currency. I expect this to be about to be bought indirectly as well as earned
$bills- Whatever they call the currency you buy with real cash. Unlikely to be earned in game. Probably can be used to buy cbills
XP- earned in game. non purchasable.
LP- earned in game. non purchasable.

I'm not so worried about the profit for PGI. That's their deal. I'm just concerned about the effect gold farmers have in game. If you get a couple in match they are typically off doing something really non-helpful to your team. They are annoying and detrimental to game play.

F2P already have enough problems with griefers and other anti-social behavior due to banning not having a real cost. We don't need to intentionally make it worse.

[Jack BeFLippen]

i think everyone is forgetting that this is a Group game.
so if MY atlas went down and we NEED to field another and you have one....gee umm... its in the same drop ship.
we should be able to freely trade and exchange without the need of NPC's. i would like a full market system with NPC's but a contractual trade or a trade window from corp mates or alliance mates, or god forbid my alt... if you guys are so worried about the Chinese farming the cash and playing the game then create Sinks for the money to flow out of the system, but dont limit the system from being expandable or useful.

Mechwarrior is a game where merc companies will need to trade to just "scrape by" sometimes; therefore under the table trades and
"deals" need to be a game dynamic.

now, i think it would be really cool if you bought something large from the market, but its on the other side of the planet and you have to decide to lift off your ship and land for a cost, or defend the shipment with the possibility to be engaged by someone who was paying attention. a train heist would be fun, admit it.

this would also make it difficult for straight cash farmers. now they have to play the game or else get harassed over and over.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Tweaks, on 12 December 2011 - 04:35 PM, said:

You both missed the point.

Let's say PGI sells C-Bills at about $30 US for 2,000,000 C-Bills, and that a wealthy and dominant Merc Corp is able to get more than that a day, easily. What stops them from selling it via a 3rd party system at a fraction of the price PGI sells it?

Like I said, if PGI set an in-game, real-money tax for wire c-bill transfers, paid by the sender, with the real-money cost scaling directly with the number of c-bills being transferred, then nobody could "sell c-bills via third party" and make a profit. They would have to cover their PGI Tariff expenses before thinking about charging someone for their time and effort, and if you add the costs of generating profit to the cost of the tariff, then they would be encroaching on the cost of brand-new c-bills from the in-game Bank.


Edit: Actually, I take that back, somebody WILL be making a profit. Every time somebody "goes behind PGI's back" and sells c-bills on the sly, PGI will make a profit form the wire transfer tax. PGI would profit handily from back-alley c-bill dealings.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 13 December 2011 - 12:19 PM.

[Phoenix of the Void]

just an idea about C-Bills... because I just don't know how they will use/handle it all...
I was thinking about how they could combine mech modifications ( IF THEY EVER ALLOW THEM ) & ressources...
why not simply allow the use of standard model for free, as factions could allocate mechs to able pilot/merc (us)... each battle won/lost grants C-Bills (much if won, much more if unscratched or lightly damaged from the fight, etc. but still C-Bills when lost cause you always get paid to fight).

WITH THAT MONEY, that would be REAL hard to amass in great quantity, they could allow us to buy and modify a "neutral model"... and THAT model, when it gets destroyed or wounded (AKA ; lose a weapon from a fight) we would need to buy back... that would allow/force the use of standard model from time to time (to get some money back) while still allowing us to play with our own model...

what do you guys think?

[Tweaks]

Prosperity Park, on 13 December 2011 - 12:15 PM, said:

Like I said, if PGI set an in-game, real-money tax for wire c-bill transfers, paid by the sender, with the real-money cost scaling directly with the number of c-bills being transferred, then nobody could "sell c-bills via third party" and make a profit. They would have to cover their PGI Tariff expenses before thinking about charging someone for their time and effort, and if you add the costs of generating profit to the cost of the tariff, then they would be encroaching on the cost of brand-new c-bills from the in-game Bank.


Edit: Actually, I take that back, somebody WILL be making a profit. Every time somebody "goes behind PGI's back" and sells c-bills on the sly, PGI will make a profit form the wire transfer tax. PGI would profit handily from back-alley c-bill dealings.

No tax will be high enough to not penalize players too much while protecting PGI from external sale of C-Bills. Don't forget that buying C-Bills is just ONE way to get them. Winning contracts and/or occupying border worlds will also get you some. If you don't have to pay money to get C-Bills, but that you can get some actual cash for selling it via 3rd party systems, then you would be able to make a whole lot of profit. This is by nature what "gold farming" means, and you can bet it WILL happen if PGI opens this door.

Take every other F2P game out there and name me a single one that opened that door. I'm curious if you can find one, cause I can't.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Well, the "gold farming is inevitable with currency transfers" logic also says there should be no way to trade/sell parts or Mechs between players because people would just "buy" parts and Mechs on the sly. It means there can only be one Central Market, one Central Bank, and members of a faction/guild/whatever cannot, in any way, share equipment or Mechs or funds.

That wouldn't be very community-friendly, in my opinion... so far, as of this posting, the MWO community voters are polling at approx. 3.5-to-1 in favor of c-bill transfers. I think that cordoning off all your money, parts, and Mechs makes this game an individual experience instead of making you feel like a team member.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 15 December 2011 - 09:12 PM.

[TheRulesLawyer]

Prosperity Park, on 15 December 2011 - 05:03 PM, said:

Well, the "gold farming is inevitable with currency transfers" logic also says there should be no way to trade/sell parts or Mechs between players because people would just "buy" parts and Mechs on the sly. It means there can only be one Central Market, one Central Bank, and members of a faction/guild/whatever cannot, in any way, share equipment or Mechs or funds.

That wouldn't be very community-friendly, in my opinion... so far, as of this posting, the MWO community voters are polling at approx. 3.5-to-1 in favor of c-bill transfers. I think that cordoning off all your money, parts, and Mechs makes this game an individual experience instead of making you feel like a team member.

I prefer to think of that as nearly 80% of people aren't thinking of the unintended consequences. I'd love to see trade too, but in a F2P game it just doesn't seem like a good idea. Gold farmers aside, its a very good way to circumvent the grind that intended to make you want to spend money to get stuff quicker. Or at least that's the common F2P model.

[Tweaks]

TheRulesLawyer, on 16 December 2011 - 10:10 AM, said:

I prefer to think of that as nearly 80% of people aren't thinking of the unintended consequences. I'd love to see trade too, but in a F2P game it just doesn't seem like a good idea. Gold farmers aside, its a very good way to circumvent the grind that intended to make you want to spend money to get stuff quicker. Or at least that's the common F2P model.

He's right. I haven't seen a single F2P game that implemented trading between players in any way, and it's most likely for good reasons! It would not work without causing severe potential losses to PGI (in terms of potential sales). And please, stop with this ridiculous idea that having some sort of transaction tax would solve it all... It won't even come close, and will only penalize legit transactions.

[Orzorn]

Tweaks, on 16 December 2011 - 10:25 AM, said:

He's right. I haven't seen a single F2P game that implemented trading between players in any way, and it's most likely for good reasons! It would not work without causing severe potential losses to PGI (in terms of potential sales). And please, stop with this ridiculous idea that having some sort of transaction tax would solve it all... It won't even come close, and will only penalize legit transactions.

The problem is, while this is correct, not having trading between players in a game so heavily oriented towards mercs and contracts would be down right ridiculous (in terms of gameplay).

I'm sure PGI has already considered the possibilities and has a system in the works to address these issues.

[Tweaks]

Orzorn, on 16 December 2011 - 11:56 AM, said:

The problem is, while this is correct, not having trading between players in a game so heavily oriented towards mercs and contracts would be down right ridiculous (in terms of gameplay).

I'm sure PGI has already considered the possibilities and has a system in the works to address these issues.

I don't see how this would be ridiculous really. The contract system won't be between players, but between NPC factions and players. Why SHOULD there be player-to-player trading? If you expect to be able to pay a Merc Corp to kick another Merc Corp's buttocks, then I'm afraid you'll be disappointed, for nothing the devs made public so far suggests that will be possible. From what has been made public so far, all indicates the system will be unidirectional from NPC to player, and not from player to player.

I could conceive however, that Merc Corps could provide their mercs with gear or resupply (in the form of a common 'Mech bay or storage area), and that Merc Corp leaders could purchase gear for their corp from an NPC market (or receive it as payment for contracts issued by NPC factions)... I could also conceive that payment from contracts would be automatically distributed to mercs assigned in the form of shares (% to be set by the Merc Corp leaders). But I don't think direct player-to-player trading will ever be implemented, even less direct C-Bill transfers.

Edited by Tweaks, 16 December 2011 - 01:02 PM.

[TheRulesLawyer]

Orzorn, on 16 December 2011 - 11:56 AM, said:

The problem is, while this is correct, not having trading between players in a game so heavily oriented towards mercs and contracts would be down right ridiculous (in terms of gameplay).

I'm sure PGI has already considered the possibilities and has a system in the works to address these issues.

I guess we'll see. I don't really see having to trade through a market rather than having direct control over who you're selling to a insurmountable issue though. Same for contracts. You'd post general contracts and anyone could take them.

[Tweaks]

TheRulesLawyer, on 16 December 2011 - 01:22 PM, said:

I guess we'll see. I don't really see having to trade through a market rather than having direct control over who you're selling to a insurmountable issue though. Same for contracts. You'd post general contracts and anyone could take them.

Again, you guys assume you'll be able to hire other Merc Corps yourselves, but from what we're seen so far, only NPC factions will give out contracts, not players!

[TheRulesLawyer]

Tweaks, on 16 December 2011 - 04:30 PM, said:

Again, you guys assume you'll be able to hire other Merc Corps yourselves, but from what we're seen so far, only NPC factions will give out contracts, not players!

How about the High LP players of house factions offering contracts for mercs? Seems a reasonable extension. I doubt you'd see much on a player level though. We'll know more Wednesday though.