Reroll and Money Sink Brainstorm

  • Archiemedis wrote:

    @Nervontuxis: That is a great remark, 100% on all points.

    I remember seeds and general upkeep cost of buildings from the summer test 2015 being very high + no 100% chance of getting seeds back after harvesting. Those days consisted of silver farming, to barely be able to farm at all. It was not a perfect balance, but it felt important to be a farmer and you had a good amount of quality time doing it.

    If there is such a thin line between important roles and a boring game play, the devs need to be aware that a re roll npc literally crushes the uniqueness of higher quality tier items being produced and sold.

    And for the argument of having higher priorities right now: There is no harm in just removing the npc and reducing silver drops for the next beta. I cannot imagine setting the silver drop rate or tax rate as a daunting 30h task. Even if they have to adjust that on a weekly basis, it would still be more pleasing than having a broken economy, a broken career and and broken silver sink in the game.

    I really like the "Lower than 100% chance of getting seeds back"-idea. This puts a money sink on building upkeep by adding an extra cost to the farmer. It also allows for the devs to make some sort of farming-minigame down the line, where you can increase the chance of getting seeds back (and increase yields) by watering and taking care of the plants.
    https://forum.albiononline.com/index.php/Thread/82954-Guide-What-order-to-level-items-in-to-get-the-most-specialization-for-your-time/
  • Stravanov wrote:

    Obviously you are right.
    High tier players put way more silver into the economy than low tier players. So the sinks do need to be progressive.
    If you make 10k silver per hour when killing T3 mobs in T3 gear, then the sink for T3 players needs to be lower than it is for players killing T8 mobs in T8 gear.
    My wording might be misleading. But the moneysink system does need to be progressive.
    Progressive? Depends.

    Heres an example with made up values:

    T4 player "farms silver" off T4 mobs and gains 10,000 silver / h. He then spends 2,000 silver on repairs.
    T6 player "farms silver" off T6 mobs and gains 20,000 silver / h. In this case the repair cost should be around 4,000.

    If we made it progressive, it would look more like he uses 5,000. After that we go up in tiers until the repairs are insanely sick compared to amount silver gained from mobs. Progressive costs are only viable when the silvergain is similarly progressed hand in hand.

    The amount of repair costs in percentage should be the same between T3 farming T3, compared to T8 farming T8. In percentage, they should be "losing" the same amount of gained silver to repairs if both players are equal in skill (no knock downs / trashed items)

    This is where the number polishing gets tricky, you need to find the perfect line between punishing bad players and those who attempt too difficult tasks with too low gear by the repair costs. However, a mediocre result should always lead to some type of "gain" in silver, it doesn't have to be much tho. A superbly well playing player should gain more due to the fact he never gets knocked down nor killed.

    Progressive costs ofc, but only if the silver gained raises along side the repair costs in the same %. Othervise you will just kill the economy once again.

    The "gained" silver made by players after repairs should be the silver that we'r looking at sinking to crafting and gvg. In my opinion it's better that the world "doesn't have enough silver" compared to the ever rising inflation. Getting the numbers right is tricky as hell and requires some insanely good value expectations and collected data. Sadly tho, that collected data is always invalid after a change is made concerning the economy, such as the new beta.

    So as for now the number tweaking in gains and losses is based on educated guesses on the devs side and hopefully they will prefer to severely cut silver down and then if needed raise the amount dropped slowly.

    This approach has ofc, like everything it's pros and cons.

    Pros:

    Starting from low silver gains you remove the possibility of inflating the market early on - which won't even out during gameplay afterwards. Unless we are talking about a very, very long time.

    By far easier to calculate from this angle than by dropping too high gains in silver. Due to the fact that it's easier to look at the numbers from the angle that "how much are people missing preferred amount of gain" compared to "how much overflow there is".

    Cons:

    The economy might be very poor indeed during the first phases of testing. People will be suffering from too low silver gain and forced to play on lower T gear to make positive income.

    If kept too long, this will then result in a situation where players could use a lot higher level gear, but are unable to craft and maintain them due to the silver draught.
    Ding dong the witch is dead!

    Officer of Nilfgaard (Haamu's party)
  • Stravanov wrote:

    I really like the "Lower than 100% chance of getting seeds back"-idea. This puts a money sink on building upkeep by adding an extra cost to the farmer. It also allows for the devs to make some sort of farming-minigame down the line, where you can increase the chance of getting seeds back (and increase yields) by watering and taking care of the plants.
    Thing is, they scrapped that concept into what is farming now.

    Some months back, there was a farming thread about all this and really good suggestions on how to make farming equally strong in terms of a fun game activity (yet to find it, but it was several pages long). But SI tuned farming towards being a side activity. I hope that decisions like this explain, why there are some members like me on the forums, pressuring the devs for better options.

    +old thread about Farming skill lines
  • Nervontuxis wrote:

    Progressive costs are only viable when the silvergain is similarly progressed hand in hand.
    I am assuming that silver gains will be progressive. Like they are in 100% of mmorpgs. And like they currently are in Albion Online.

    Not having progressive silver gains simply doesn't make any sense. So obviously income will follow this logic.

    **EDIT**
    Obviously if you have a flawless run without any deaths, then a T8 player farming T6-8 content should make more silver than a T4 player farming T4 content.
    https://forum.albiononline.com/index.php/Thread/82954-Guide-What-order-to-level-items-in-to-get-the-most-specialization-for-your-time/
  • Stravanov wrote:

    Not having progressive silver gains simply doesn't make any sense. So obviously income will follow this logic.
    Aye, progressive but with what %. Currently in beta the amount of silver you gain skyrocketed the moment you could start doing earthmother and morgana bosses.

    What im trying to say is that the progression with repair - silver gain needs to be equally progressive through-out the tiers.
    Ding dong the witch is dead!

    Officer of Nilfgaard (Haamu's party)
  • Archiemedis wrote:

    Stravanov wrote:

    I really like the "Lower than 100% chance of getting seeds back"-idea. This puts a money sink on building upkeep by adding an extra cost to the farmer. It also allows for the devs to make some sort of farming-minigame down the line, where you can increase the chance of getting seeds back (and increase yields) by watering and taking care of the plants.
    Thing is, they scrapped that concept into what is farming now.
    Some months back, there was a farming thread about all this and really good suggestions on how to make farming equally strong in terms of a fun game activity (yet to find it, but it was several pages long). But SI tuned farming towards being a side activity. I hope that decisions like this explain, why there are some members like me on the forums, pressuring the devs for better options.

    +old thread about Farming skill lines
    Its true that currently the farming system is boring as hell and has been completely disgarded as a necessary evil that no one really wants to do.

    Im guessing that everyone, including the devs know this but just can't do the changes yet due to more pressing matters. I seriously also think that farming should a completely possible way to play Albion and a way to contribute to the system.

    The farming system in general needs a lot of big changes to make it interesting. But hey, we'r still in beta and developing this game is also a marathon, not a sprint :)
    Ding dong the witch is dead!

    Officer of Nilfgaard (Haamu's party)
  • @Nervontuxis I agree with your posts almost completely, but maybe shutting down the reforge would inflict lots of problems.
    • There are lots of different kind of skill combinations just in one gear piece, so you should buy huge a mount of different kind of gear.
    • Then comes storage problems.
    • It would be money waste to just test different skills.
    • It will be hard to find exact gear pieces you need from auction house.
    • Also devs are going to add even more skills to gear's, so this complicates this situation even more.
  • they had the tavern idea in place. u can add mini games npc that allows u to play cards checkers chess poker black jack. a good way to gamble and lose money to npc. price of mount crafting should be higher. re rolling gear should maybe be added as enchantment. u need tp ;eve; enchanting line and have gem gathering to create enchanting scrolls. then players can buy tier based enchantment scrollls off others to upgrade there gear
  • What if they just linked repair cost and siege attacks to the auction house and mob silver drops?

    It would look like this:

    Take some segment of data from the AH, say all sold resources, then the sum it, and come up with the predetermined base for both the AH, silver sinks and mobs. When inflation hits the AH it also hits silver sinks and mob silver drops.

    Example:

    • Base for the sum of all sold resources, repairs and mobs is 100 (repairs and mobs would be multiplied by tier)
    • When the sum of all sold resources goes up by 1% repair costs go up by 1% mob drop rates go down by 1%.
    So if the system worked like this: (repair base) * (tier) a full repair would cost 400 silver on a t4 item. If inflation went up 1% it would cost 404. if inflation made it to 10% it would go to 440.
    Also a t4 mob would normally give 400 silver, but at 1% inflation it would give 396 silver, and at 10% inflation it would give 360 silver.

    Obviously tie world chests and castle chest to mob drops.

    Do this then remove reroll and reforge.
  • Thomas9 wrote:

    @Nervontuxis I agree with your posts almost completely, but maybe shutting down the reforge would inflict lots of problems.
    • There are lots of different kind of skill combinations just in one gear piece, so you should buy huge a mount of different kind of gear.
    • Then comes storage problems.
    • It would be money waste to just test different skills.
    • It will be hard to find exact gear pieces you need from auction house.
    • Also devs are going to add even more skills to gear's, so this complicates this situation even more.

    1. Should or would want to? Most of the players run 1 spec for pve, 1 for pvp. The whole idea would be to force players to choose and to make crafting more important. Also, getting someones gear as loot would possibly give you a free chance to try out a dif build as well, or to just sell, scrap, whatever the gear.

    2. Storage problems are already there and easily fixed by expanding chests with another gold sink

    3. Not a waste, something you do or you don't do. Again, this would keep crafting and selling items far more interesting.

    4. Thats an UI problem. The UI in AH is complete garbage currently and in many other parts as well. Shouldn't be an issue to update the UI which should be expected even or without the removal of the feature.

    5. Read above :)

    I feel that removing the reforge is as important as removing reroll. Both hurt the fundamental idea of having crafters being unique and the pillarstone of the community. These need to be removed to make a higher variety in gear, builds, crafters uniqueness and so on.
    Ding dong the witch is dead!

    Officer of Nilfgaard (Haamu's party)
  • Nervontuxis wrote:

    I feel that removing the reforge is as important as removing reroll.
    Reforge can't be removed because it touches too many other elements of gameplay, a consequence of marrying abilities to equipment and, more specifically, restricting each slot to only a single ability at a time.

    Although it'd be funny to see a superguild/alliance continuously snatch up every piece of gear forged with the most useful PvP abilities, leaving only gimped items to rot on the market.
  • Radicale wrote:

    Nervontuxis wrote:

    I feel that removing the reforge is as important as removing reroll.
    Reforge can't be removed because it touches too many other elements of gameplay, a consequence of marrying abilities to equipment and, more specifically, restricting each slot to only a single ability at a time.
    Although it'd be funny to see a superguild/alliance continuously snatch up every piece of gear forged with the most useful PvP abilities, leaving only gimped items to rot on the market.
    Because it would be impossible for crafters to craft more of the items with the PvP abilities?
    https://forum.albiononline.com/index.php/Thread/82954-Guide-What-order-to-level-items-in-to-get-the-most-specialization-for-your-time/
  • Radicale wrote:

    Stravanov wrote:

    Because it would be impossible for crafters to craft more of the items with the PvP abilities?
    And the monopolizers would continue buying them. Although crafters aren't known for keeping up with the meta in the first place.
    This is how supply and demand works.

    There isnt much difference between buying out all items now, and buying out only half the items with the right abilities on.

    I would much rather prefer the more specialized variation. This also allows for trade to actually being a full time occupation during a big war. If the market runs out of a certain item with certain skills on, then so be it. Its just a part of the game. I much prefer this scenario than the super bland scenario that we currently have.

    Trade wars also happen in EVE Online. If you want more depth in AO, you need to make the trade profession more viable and interesting. And you need trade wars/blockades to be a thing. If you just want AO to be a bland game that lasts for 6 months, then go with the bland version.
    https://forum.albiononline.com/index.php/Thread/82954-Guide-What-order-to-level-items-in-to-get-the-most-specialization-for-your-time/
  • Radicale wrote:

    Stravanov wrote:

    Because it would be impossible for crafters to craft more of the items with the PvP abilities?
    And the monopolizers would continue buying them. Although crafters aren't known for keeping up with the meta in the first place.
    Im sorry but it's fairly obvious that you haven't really studied any economics / business studies. And I'm not gonna start explaining how a basic market works for the 50th time on these forums.
    Ding dong the witch is dead!

    Officer of Nilfgaard (Haamu's party)