Time to talk about economy!

why would that be a problem? If that's how the population manifests then that's how it manifests.

I doubt a single guild will be in control forever and at all times. Eventually somebody is going to want to wipe them out. In fact everybody who is not a member of that group would feel the desire to eradicate that group, so what do they do??? Who knows. Possibly they will create a bigger group as the original syndicate starts dropping in numbers.

Order vs Chaos type Scenerio would resolve this:

However, my guess is if they enact an Order vs Chaos type thing like we had in previous games, then it will be much easier to join up with an overwhelming force. One thing about a fighting faction is that you automatically have allies even if you were out PvPing alone.

This was good because I did a lot of Solo PvPing in UO, and having Chaos guild members from other guilds around helped me not get completely ganked by massive numbers of Order people. Even if the Chaos guys didn't actively heal me, at least I didn't have to worry about all the people attacking me at the same time since they had to be concerned about other guys picking them off one by one.

If they enact something like this then no single guild will be able to rule these places, because that guild would have enemy guilds. If others come in and some are PKs, and others are in the Chaos faction it might be difficult even for a large guild to fight against these guys eventhough they aren't all part of the same guild... they become loosely united under the faction.

 

ORDER VS CHAOS TYPE FACTIONS ARE USELESS WITHOUT A CRIMINAL/MURDER SYSTEM:

If they had an order vs chaos type faction needs a criminal/murder system to be useful. Then any group that tries to maintain control of a shardfall will become susceptible to attack. Without criminal/murder flags then the consequences for attacking and killing are the same for everybody. Then the large guild always has an advantage. The criminal/murder system creates incentive to take sides and not become a murderer. (even Tombstone Arizona had laws back in Wyatt Earp's time... there were differences between fair fights resulting in death, and then there was murder.)

If a player attacks another player without just cause (not being in an enemy faction or enemy guild), then that player should be flagged a criminal and openly attackable by any other player. If they are in an enemy faction or enemy guild then they are legally attackable. So the guild that is trying to take over a shardfall has their work cutout for them if they enact a criminal system.

If there is no criminal system then I fear this game will be the wild west, and there will be no semi-reliable allies. Adding a faction without a criminal system doesn't mean as much because anybody can attack anybody and the consequenses are the same no matter who you attack. Then we are going to be screwed when some group takes over a shardfall.

 

We do not know how instancing will work, but these scenes will favour larger groups and sooner or later those larger guilds should fill the instance. Sure ,they will not keep them forever, just for how long they play, but they will become unbeatable... So I think that big groups will end up in their own instances in popular scenes.

 

Although would that then spawn a second instance if they bring too many people? Then resources will get nabbed in both instances. You will see a tree appear and fall down before your eyes or something. Who knows. lol

Then again factions might actually even the odds if players evenly are divided into both factions. Then random individuals will be able to enter a shardfall and have a good chance that other faction members might be there to help.

That still doesn't ensure loyalty when it comes to mining resources, but it does allow for players to more easily unite to over throw syndicates.

 

the idea of non-conflict diamonds is better then the notion of conflict diamonds. and all it takes is a little bit of negligence and a few tells. this was the inherent incentive to make sure horde/alliance didnt understand each other

and the inherent implication of their presence on pvp shards inferred PVP; however with time even that turned out to be more or less "ungamed" or "left uncared for" because of the time investment and the lack of a return

 

Perfect.

 

Late to this conversation, but had a question about the comment:

• Taking that pelt and turning it into some sweet leather armor? BUZZZ…balanced or drain

I realize it's a game, and therefore does not follow real-world models, but shouldn't crafting increase the value overall? Raw Materials (metal, wood, plastic, silk, etc...) are not as worth as much as the finished good made from them (assuming it's of quality). Otherwise, I could tear my car down and make money

Thanks,
Unseen

 

In the another portion of the post, Chris refers to Market economics, and that is where the value is added. In the Macro economics the crafting process uses more, and or store bought goods, so it pulls value back to the game. IE : the item becomes more valuable to us as players but not to the Macro economy.

 

Interesting, I was thinking along a similar vein.

Let's make the assumption that there are 3 kinds of areas.

- permanently PVE
- permanently PVP
- shift from PVP to PVE and back

The state shifting mechanism for the 3rd type - as you stated - is the shedding of player blood. Too much blood shed and the game spawns monsters which become harder and harder to kill the more player killing there is. And at a certain point these can only be killed by players with no player kills (ie. PVErs).

Once the area is cleared by PVErs, it stays PVE for some time. After that period it shifts back to being PvP.

This presents all sorts of opportunities for everyone - PvPers, PvErs and even both camps working together. it also introduces "virtue" as a workable dynamic to balance out PvP and PvE play.

 

I don't think I'm following the logic you and Chris are referring to. I understand the difference between a macro and micro (what he seems to be calling market) model, but even rereading his post it still seems to clash with my understand of economics.

A craftsman is adding value to goods as they go through the chain, that is the whole purpose of labor in this case. Refined ore is worth more than the raw ore. It takes time, effort, and skill to refine it and that value is added to the good in its new form.

 

Its due to the added value of EXP in a virtual world.

 

I will attempt to do better. What he is referring to is that the value added to the crafted product comes from your time and skill. The game didn't create the value or add value (in fact it will likely cost the craftsman to add the value) of the finished product. It is more valuable to the end user than leather, but the value added didn't come from the game, it came from the craftsman.

Any help?

 

I get that, and I think the issue is that in real life that craftsman's value is time-restricted. It takes a lot of time to make something of high quality. In the game, it does not, and I don't think anyone wants a mechanic where a blacksmith has to sit at the keyboard for several hours.
But again, if find it odd that a vendor will buy your unrefined item for 10, and the refined items it makes for 5 (that's all made up of course). Again, I see why it's made that way, but I think it's a purposeful departure to real-world economic models.

 

Example: Leather Boots
Tailoring Scissors x 1
Yard of Leather x 3

When Leather Boots are crafted. The 3 Yards of Leather are consumed. The Tailoring Scissors take damage from usage.

Someone needs to gather the leather. The server fabricates this leather each time someone gathers. The server deletes the yard of leather each time these boots are created.

This is balance.

The damage to the scissors is a drain. If there was a vendor component to the crafting then that would also be a drain.

This type of economics is not player value economics. It's about what materials are generated by the server and deleted by the server.

 

Thank you Ristra, that does a better job than I was doing.

The "Game" giveth, and the "Game" taketh away.
These have little to for with what an item will sell for to a PC.

 

If you keep it, there will be no market for it.

If it becomes soemthing you have to replenish or replace, the economy will flourish

 

In an abstract sense that is true, but you need to factor in supply and demand as well. While refined ore is better than raw ore, if there is an overall glut of refined ore in the market, then the value of the refined ore would be less.

 

That's a hard way of looking at it. It needs to be broken down to it's parts, programmer style.

1 ore is gathered.
1 ore is refined into 1 ingot.
1 ingot is used to craft 1 dagger.
1 dagger is used until it is worn and destroyed.

The 1 ore is created by the server when a player gathers.
Then the 1 ore is deleted by the server when refined.
1 ingot is created by the server.
1 ingot is deleted by the server when 1 dagger is crafted.
1 dagger is created by the server.
1 dagger is deleted by the server due to durability

What matters is the 1 ore created and the 1 dagger deleted. This type of economics is not the same as player economy where value is added depending on supply, demand, and effort/skill.

If the dagger was never deleted then, eventually, there will be no need to gather more ore.

Refined ore might be more valuable to the player, as it could set quality levels, but the economics of value comes from a different control. Which is why it's separated into 2 parts. Server economics and player economics. Or macroeconomics and market economics.

 

Shroud of the hidden daggerfall... riiiight.

you're a genius sometimes