46 replies to this topic

[Nick Makiaveli]

Sephlock, on 16 January 2014 - 02:50 PM, said:

Won't this utterly bork free players who can only have 4 mechs max, especially once the dropship mode is introduced?

This highlights the primary problem. Ie unintended consequences. It's one reason why RnR was dropped in the first place.

For the above system to be more than a money sink, and thus be meaningful, there has to some level that if you drop below, you are screwed, to put it in technical and professional terminology.

If you can easily make enough to cover the repairs and fees, then what's the point? If you can't, then new and casual players won't be able to play the mechs they want to use because they either can't afford to repair them or they are still in the repair bay.

Think on it a second. You have 4 mechs, and you only live 4 minutes on average. So after your 4th match, unless the repair time is 15 minutes or less, you can't play any owned mech. God help you if you only have 2 mechs and repairs take an average of 30+ minutes.

[Roadbeer]

Sad panda.
What started out as a good idea has been theory crafted into a nightmare

[Zerberus]

True, but it`s better to theorycraft it into one than to blindly say "Yeah, Great idea" and wind up with Skirmish an Auction-Hell instead of a real economy as a neverending Daymare.

Edited by Zerberus, 16 January 2014 - 04:30 PM.

[R Razor]

I like it all but I'd add ammo replacement costs to the mix.........if you use it you replace it out of your pocket unless you're a merc unit and it's written into the contract.........might help reduce some of the dakka junk roaming the battlefield these days.

[Grickshaft]

you don't need a way to transfer cbills, just a market to buy and sell, then you DO get into trouble with gold farming.

xferring cbills would be a terrible idea with the cadet bonus they have implemented... think about it

i dont want a way to make cbills in this game without even playing, its meant to be a way to make money because you played the actual game.

ps... im sure if there was a market there would be abuse anyways through extreme buying/selling to xfer cbills

Edited by Grickshaft, 16 January 2014 - 04:41 PM.

[Sephlock]

Nick Makiaveli, on 16 January 2014 - 04:23 PM, said:

This highlights the primary problem. Ie unintended consequences. It's one reason why RnR was dropped in the first place.

For the above system to be more than a money sink, and thus be meaningful, there has to some level that if you drop below, you are screwed, to put it in technical and professional terminology.

If you can easily make enough to cover the repairs and fees, then what's the point? If you can't, then new and casual players won't be able to play the mechs they want to use because they either can't afford to repair them or they are still in the repair bay.

Think on it a second. You have 4 mechs, and you only live 4 minutes on average. So after your 4th match, unless the repair time is 15 minutes or less, you can't play any owned mech. God help you if you only have 2 mechs and repairs take an average of 30+ minutes.

This is why we need SPACE SOCIALISM!

Simply take the c-bills out of the accounts of the guys with trillions and redistribute them to the rest of us!

[Nick Makiaveli]

Zerberus, on 16 January 2014 - 04:10 PM, said:

No way to transfrer c-bills??

LOL? That`s the entire point of a player driven economy.

And the Farmers are one of the primary causes of inflation in MMOs with a free market... because they farm to the point where nobody else can acquire the items reasonably, then sell them at a premium in the AH, driving up the price, making the sale of ingame currency or power leveling services more enticing... this in turn enables them to earn real money. And the more it happens, the more people take advantage of it, and the more often people get their accounts hacked as a result of their own impatiernce and desire to "lessen teh grind"

I`m sorry, but IMO anybody that does not understand this most basic of industry guidelines that has been accepted and heeded by every MMO developer since WoW left closed Beta has absolutely no purpose discussing the benefits and detriments of player driven economies. Just like I don`t discuss Astrophilosophy with people who can`t grasp classic philosophy, because you have to understand and accept the basics to even start to grasp the advanced material.

WTF are you talking about? No, seriously. I can't figure out what you are on about. You mock him because you misunderstand he is referring to the current inability to xfer cbills, then launch into a perfect explanation of how this idea would lead to farming by explaining farming, but yet you seem to support the idea.

Seriously, please explain. Without the pretentious, condescending astrophilosophy or whatever it was.

Roadbeer, on 16 January 2014 - 04:24 PM, said:

Sad panda.
What started out as a good idea has been theory crafted into a nightmare

Or exposed as not such a good idea

[focuspark]

Grickshaft, on 16 January 2014 - 04:36 PM, said:

you don't need a way to transfer cbills, just a market to buy and sell, then you DO get into trouble with gold farming.

xferring cbills would be a terrible idea with the cadet bonus they have implemented... think about it

i dont want a way to make cbills in this game without even playing, its meant to be a way to make money because you played the actual game.

If PGI is also selling items for real $, then there will be no farmers. Farmers are only present in games like WoW because they're not using the F2P model and there's no way to circumvent the grind. With F2P people pay to skip the grind, this gives the developer an active incentive to police the populace and puts limits on the prices farmers can fetch. This drives up their costs and caps their revenues - driving most if not all farmers out of the game into greener pastures elsewhere.

Additionally, once you have an open market you could start selling MC for c-bills. This would give F2P players access to MC and the benefits that come with it.

[Sephlock]

focuspark, on 16 January 2014 - 04:43 PM, said:

If PGI is also selling items for real $, then there will be no farmers. Farmers are only present in games like WoW because they're not using the F2P model and there's no way to circumvent the grind. With F2P people pay to skip the grind, this gives the developer an active incentive to police the populace and puts limits on the prices farmers can fetch. This drives up their costs and caps their revenues - driving most if not all farmers out of the game into greener pastures elsewhere.

Additionally, once you have an open market you could start selling MC for c-bills. This would give F2P players access to MC and the benefits that come with it.

Please no. Don't turn this game into a Libertarian fantasyland.

Blizzard tried that with the RMAH and is only just now realizing that was a bad idea and rectifying their error. It'd take PGI until 3050 (our time) to do so.

Nick Makiaveli, on 16 January 2014 - 04:41 PM, said:

WTF are you talking about? No, seriously. I can't figure out what you are on about. You mock him because you misunderstand he is referring to the current inability to xfer cbills, then launch into a perfect explanation of how this idea would lead to farming by explaining farming, but yet you seem to support the idea.

Seriously, please explain. Without the pretentious, condescending astrophilosophy or whatever it was.

Google "Astrophilosophy".

Make sure you aren't drinking anything when you do.

[Zerberus]

Nick Makiaveli, on 16 January 2014 - 04:41 PM, said:

WTF are you talking about? No, seriously. I can't figure out what you are on about. You mock him because you misunderstand he is referring to the current inability to xfer cbills, then launch into a perfect explanation of how this idea would lead to farming by explaining farming, but yet you seem to support the idea.

Seriously, please explain.Without the pretentious, condescending astrophilosophy or whatever it was

I don`t have to be concescending to say that I do not understand how you interpret any of my posts in this thread or any other as supporting the idea of a player driven economy, as I have always been one of it`s most staunch detractors, not only in this game.

Last time I checked, Farmers are not viewed in a positive light in online games.... and that is also my stance. If I wanted to see farmers I`d visit a ranch and buy potatoes and onions, maybe some fresh ham.

Sephlock, on 16 January 2014 - 04:50 PM, said:

Google "Astrophilosophy".

Make sure you aren't drinking anything when you do.

And ignore just about anything that mentions tarot cards, voodoo, or other heebie-jeebie BS.

Edited by Zerberus, 16 January 2014 - 04:54 PM.

[focuspark]

Sephlock, on 16 January 2014 - 04:48 PM, said:

Please no. Don't turn this game into a Libertarian fantasyland.

Blizzard tried that with the RMAH and is only just now realizing that was a bad idea and rectifying their error. It'd take PGI until 3050 (our time) to do so.

So what would you suggest instead? What reasons would people fight in CW other than to just fight? Because if they're just fighting PGI can skip CW and just implement private servers.

Besides, this would hardly be a "Libertarian fantasyland", but I love how your personal politics seeped into the conversation about fictional space robot pilots. Since players would be getting items for free (salvage) they could just collect the items they want or go to the market to get them.

Blizzards RMAH was a disaster because there was no reason to have it. It made absolutely no sense. They attempted to wedge fit a concept from MMO in to a single player experience. Of course it completely melted down.

Once CW is here (assuming it actually arrives) MWO will be a MMO; like it or not.

[Sephlock]

Zerberus, on 16 January 2014 - 04:50 PM, said:

I don`t have to be concescending to say that I do not understand how you interpret any of my posts in this thread or any other as supporting the idea of a player driven economy, as I have always been one of it`s most staunch detractors, not only in this game.

Last time I checked, Farmers are not viewed in a positive light in online games.... and that is also my stance. If I wanted to farm I`d buy a ranch.

Who are you to deny those poor Chinese prisoners some variety in games?

[Zerberus]

Sephlock, on 16 January 2014 - 04:53 PM, said:

Who are you to deny those poor Chinese prisoners some variety in games?

Ok, fair point..., humanitarian angle, did not expect that... ehm... ehm...

I`ll get back to you on that

[Sephlock]

focuspark, on 16 January 2014 - 04:52 PM, said:

So what would you suggest instead? What reasons would people fight in CW other than to just fight? Because if they're just fighting PGI can skip CW and just implement private servers.

Ask someone like Daisu Saikoro. He's more in tune with the whole Merc Group/Clan CW thing.

Regardless, putting us on a treadmill doesn't seem like a very fun solution- and that is why we're playing, right? For fun?

Quote

Blizzards RMAH was a disaster because there was no reason to have it. It made absolutely no sense. They attempted to wedge fit a concept from MMO in to a single player experience. Of course it completely melted down.

Once CW is here (assuming it actually arrives) MWO will be a MMO; like it or not.

Diablo III is a single player experience? I guess it CAN be...

[focuspark]

Sephlock, on 16 January 2014 - 05:00 PM, said:

Ask someone like Daisu Saikoro. He's more in tune with the whole Merc Group/Clan CW thing.

Regardless, putting us on a treadmill doesn't seem like a very fun solution- and that is why we're playing, right? For fun?

No idea who that is. As for "why", achievement. Right now the best we can do is KDR or win:loss ratios.

Sephlock, on 16 January 2014 - 05:00 PM, said:

Diablo III is a single player experience? I guess it CAN be...

It was designed as much, multiplayer has always been an add-in to the Diablo franchise. It's far, far from an MMO by any stretch of the mind.

[Bagheera]

General follow up:

By inflation I mean rampant over-pricing of certain items - which in retrospect is not the most accurate use of the term. Some of us could pay the prices with no problems, but the last thing this game needs is another barrier for new players.

I can't speak for Eve, but every game I've seen with players buying/selling drops ends up the same way - eventually the pricing just gets ridiculous. The OP mentioned something about assigning rarity to drops, and that's sort of where the whole problem starts. Perhaps there is way to make it work with careful tuning and regular adjustments, but the potential for suckitude is pretty high, imo.

It's interesting in theory, but I'm too cynical to support it fully, sorry.

Roadbeer, on 16 January 2014 - 04:17 PM, said:

I think this one may have been over mocked by someone. Maybe it was me, it's hard to keep track of those I've mocked.

Oh, it was most definitely me. I guess no one told her how funny I think it is that she's still following me around the forums. Want to take bets on how long before someone sees her in game?

[MadcatX]

focuspark, on 16 January 2014 - 04:52 PM, said:

So what would you suggest instead? What reasons would people fight in CW other than to just fight? Because if they're just fighting PGI can skip CW and just implement private servers.

Besides, this would hardly be a "Libertarian fantasyland", but I love how your personal politics seeped into the conversation about fictional space robot pilots. Since players would be getting items for free (salvage) they could just collect the items they want or go to the market to get them.

Blizzards RMAH was a disaster because there was no reason to have it. It made absolutely no sense. They attempted to wedge fit a concept from MMO in to a single player experience. Of course it completely melted down.

Once CW is here (assuming it actually arrives) MWO will be a MMO; like it or not.

The RMAH actually did have some reasons. One of the bigger ones was curbing the rampant use of farmers and bots that they experienced in D2 by allowing people to purchase items legally off the RMAH and create a player-driven economy (They do have some experience running AH's).

Drop rates was their biggest killer, they had put soooo much more emphasis on loot (watching the dev vids made it abundantly clear) that they had lowered the drop rates, which depreciated market values for rares and up. It was too common an occurrence for someone to buy what they suspected was a very rare piece of gear only to have it drop in the next run.

But one of the biggest complaints I saw was the P2W aspect this brought, by obviously being able to buy your way to the top. Also a lot of people just plain missed the ol' fashion face-to-face trading.

It also messed with quite a few new things they implemented, such as the crafting system.

MW:o will be as much an MMO as WoT and other games with instanced battles over a larger separate somewhat dynamic map.

[Deathlike]

Roadbeer, on 16 January 2014 - 04:24 PM, said:

Sad panda.
What started out as a good idea has been theory crafted into a nightmare

That is why debates happen... to weed the good from the bad.

Sometimes what is a thoughtful, well meaning/intentioned idea can be turned into "omfg wtf, why didn't you think of the consequences" type of deal.

It could be worse.

[Ryvucz]

I like the idea of an equipment market exchange.

I have a lot of weapons/engines that I could sell to new players for 1 C-Bill.

Helps them get parts they want/need )or just the C-Bills for resale) and I get a lot less equipment to look at.

Yes, I could sell it all, but ya never know what the future holds.

[Krujiente]

I am for this, this pleases me. Fund it all the way.