So, what do you think about sieges forced friend-mode and capped to adlvl 80 in r63?

When i first played Eve the concurrent player record was under 2000 people and the amount of space in the game was only about third of what it is now (then at it height is had 80k concurrent players, economy should scale with player base, as more players mean more DEMAND as well supply. The economy still worked. the problem here is demand not supply. Normal concurrent player for my timezone was about 400 players at the time.

Everyone keeps wanting to limit supply, the ONLY true currency in any player driven economy is player time. As long as the demand is there and exploiting the supply takes player time (why botting is bad as no player time investment) the player economy (with the price) will deal with the rest.

If players over farm the supply of one thing (regardless of it availability) the price will drop, it will drop to a level that you are better off farming something else as you make more gold farming that, and price stabilises.

However if there is no enough demand and only demand is the NPC buying (that does not change with supply) then the player driven market cannot do its job.


Regards
Spung

 

So in summary, several recent positive QOL issues crushed by one Massive negative QOL decision.

Maybe they should field test these ideas on the test server and reward the testers/obtain lots of real tested feedback then consider the decision.

R/Boris

 

Spungwa. I kind of agree with you somewhere in some lines. But also a broken clock is right 2 times per day.
Open world / no flag required for engagement / no istanced game is totally another planet of things.
Salt vs sugar
The copypasted EULA RMT just killed your last answer btw. Twice
And that's why people play to maintain the gear, cause decay rate is so high that without that level many crafters would have left for valhalla

 

I'll have to check it out in the QA server tonight. I'm hoping they can make sieges great again

Hopefully they will hit the mark. Now if I can only get through the work day quicker. We need a chaos time shifting spell ;-)

 

after all these words - you have not explained why yet you think is right overfarming stuff in private mode with the same rate of open mode where more players share the same number of monsters and resources ))

 

Ok i can answer that, gold and silver ore are ALWAYS in demand and mines have been non multi player as long as i have been playing. That has not broken the economy in these resources.

Regards
Spung

 

I smell a "they promised, so they have to" whispered like an old sage nanny tells nephews stories to get asleep

 

then go out of the mine and look at how ruined the economy of everything else is )))

 

They are always on demand cause destroy rate is totally crazy just to justify "casual 24/7 crafters and private gatherers".

Given the player time unmodificable (by port at least), they can only act on the 3 values left:
- farm zone accessibility
- crated decay rate
- drop rate
Everybody playing have seen the latest modification in these decay and drop. They triing to fix this while keeping untouched the only value (aka farm zone accessibility) which should be open, not istanced , competitive wise like in e v e r y g a m e Out there

 

EXACTLY my point. increase the demand by making the stuff WORTH something to the player base, does not have to be by destruction. So the player worth is higher than the NPC buy worth. Problem solved without having to limit supply and game modes.

There are many other post with example for resource consumption ideas that is not gear destruction that could be used to increase demand of EVERYTHING to players.


Regards
Spung

 

I'm right there with you. I don't understand the logic behind capping pve in a game where we supposedly have no cap.

Did the devs stop drinking during the telethons so they could drink all the time while they're working?

 

The question is why? --- to incentivize the private farming in a mmorpg?
Cut resources and experience in private is the only reasonable SOLUTION )

 

Thanks for the think tank here

I'd like:

- randomic Masterworks / Enchants = normal material cost

- fixed and choose-able Masterworks / Enchants (with spec.) = 10x times the mat cost.

Gear decay thrown out of the window. Totally. People will strive anyway to grab gather and craft because everybody wanna try both epic than supple than bronze chainmail stuff to improve and fit the playstyle. Demand will be high everytime and issues will appear in years (where new artifacts or stuff can be introduced to reSpring the economy again)
I kind of think we agree Spungwa and this is not rocket science aka should get aquired easily

 

So i guess this is where we differ. it is nothing to do with reasonable, it is an economy design choice. At this point there is a fork in the road, both paths lead to a better economy, as either approach is valid.

You prefer limiting players acquisition (ie limit supply).
I prefer the option of increasing demand.

Maybe it 13 years in Eve, but i have seen it work before and work well, so i'm advocating that path.


Regards
Spung

 

Let's take in example artifacts, if many people go in friend mode and drop lot of minor artifacts (ex. rings, crafting rings, frozen orb, etc.) even if the vendor pays you 1 coin for every artifacts it doesn't change anything, cause there will be anyway a surplus of artifacts and they will be transformed in essences. Times ago an ancient essence worthd around 2.5/3k and an artifact ring around 5k, now essences are 900g ea and artifacts ring 2k because there is no demand at all of rings, and about essences supply is more than demand, cause there is a surplus. Surplus is caused by a small population which influence the demand, and an overproduction of the item: if we could enter in a zone just in multiplayer mode, we surely would have less rings around and probably price will raise cause demand will raise.

 

But population SHOULD have nothing to do with it, because more population increase supply as well as demand. In this example make some more mechanics that consume essences, say hand 20 (made up number, analysis what is a relevant number) to remove attenuation. Not like you can farm 20 artefacts in the time you attenuate, so that demand is high and continual. Just means every say 10 hours of farming (if you are lucky) you get to remove 1 attenuation.

With something like above the minimum demand for ALL artefacts goes up to a price that people perceive 1 mill XP of their time to be worth.

That is just an example, there other rewards that players may demand beyond XP, if you don't like giving more XP. As i said see other threads, there have been a few


Regards
Spung

 

Should they change game features and design to let people overfarm infinitely resources and monsters in private mode? NO ((
Should they tune down resources and experience points rate in private cause there is a big advantage to have all monsters and resources for a single player or party? YES ))

 

“Watches another ping pong ball going back and forth”

First of all, if I want to use “my time” efficiently to obtain “x” amount of whatever mat I want or need without having to fight someone else for it in a non multiplayer mode that should be my choice. The game was set up that way.

If we want to get rid of excessive item decay we can do it and not affect crafters too. Have NPc vendor items pay crafter/seller 75 pct of what it cost to make the item. Plenty of item price guides out there for a formula and plenty of trash stuff that can disappear from the game.

You may at that point and later with crafting specialization have a rich economy for both crafters and mats farmers providing much needed supplies for the crafters and goods to be made to order.

That may give us something to spend our time doing until we can get castle sieges which will create and endgame worthy of all the grinding and leveling skills along with politics, alliances and intrigue.

“Steps down from the soapbox”.

R/Boris/El Pirata/Black Sails Forever

 

Well finally the Devs listened to the majority of the player base. It seems that you CAN teach old dogs new tricks after all. Thanks for listening for once!

@Chris Does that mean that the multi-player change was not meant to be either, or just the Caps?