Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2016 9:12:52 GMT -5
I'm not sure encouraging spending time not playing by paying people to stay offline is a healthy basis for the economy. I think there's a misunderstanding here. My thinking is having players get paid offline more the more they play. It comes down to whether or not players being salaried for income sources that currently don't scale well (meaning this could be fixed instead) is a good solution or not. Jobs like salting are there to feel a niche where a player is strictly required to do so to sustain oneself for a very small portion of playtime. That's why it'd be hard to implement a solution that has it scale well. If this wasn't an RPI, I'd be vehemently against it. It sounds socialist and I'm a Ron Paul fan  . Anyways, it's perfectly reasonable to disagree with the above, but I just wanted to regurgitate what I'm suggesting and what I'm not. Encouraging people to spend time not playing sounds ridiculous because it is.
Does salting need to be fixed? Maybe.
Come on man, you know it's a problem. I guess 'need' is a strong word. Fixing salting would fix nothing unless the equivalents are fixed too. I'll concede with this - it'd be much better if these things were fixed. Can you do something about it, as a player? Yes, go raid those rich fuckers.
I've had many characters who power-grinded salting. Not one of them have been killed while doing so - although there were several close calls with different PCs (all attacked from the same Red Fang dude no less). I guess I am one of the rare players who has never been PK'd though. I do agree with what you're saying here and think that you have the right idea. I'd be happier looking back if I -had- been PK'd while power-grinding salt, even if it was only once. I could detail why this doesn't happen super often as often as it should, I mean it's not for lack of players on that would kill said rich fuckers, but that's neither here nor there. And by raid I don't mean indiscriminately kill, there are better ways. I don't think anyone should really be power-gaming their gear, I've used sub-optimal stuff before as a theme. That said, with some guild/subguild combos, you have to kind of optimizeYeah. In the end, it's on the players to support the economy.
I mean, if we take this to extremes, we'd be all talking about a MUSH if having a coded infrastructure for things wasn't hella important. The economy should, from a coded perspective, be solid enough that players can't totally fuck it to irrelevancy. They have and we do. It's not a question of why should I buy this wicked-sick hatchet when I can get an obsidian edged tomohawk that's even better? It's, WHY SHOULDN'T YOU?
Quoted for consistency. |
|
grumble
GDB Superstar
toxic shithead
Destroyer of Worlds
Posts: 1,619
|
Post by grumble on Jun 27, 2016 13:52:15 GMT -5
All valid points, thanks for the explanation.
|
|
|
|
Post by BitterFlashback on Jun 28, 2016 23:58:39 GMT -5
I think this is a fairly huge leap in the right direction. It'd still be better if staff automated most of the clan shit like I'd suggested, so they wouldn't need all of these requirements to avoid staff pissing away their time on clans that 1) won't go anywhere or 2) to prevent cliques... but it does have the decided advantage of not needing coding.
The important thing is people can now build towards something in the game. People who make their own activity, especially when it requires enlisting others, have always been the biggest draws in the game. Arm's suffered for having driven so many of them away.
The economy of the game is still busted but I honestly have trouble believing that matters. If you had a crapton of money and didn't have the staff stepping on your throat every time you tried to do something with it, you'd focus on getting things done. Role playing things. Actually making character concepts you bring to fruition rather than the tedium of trying to win at Arm. It won't matter to you what you grind to afford what you need. Eventually you'd just suspend your disbelief automatically for what is always the dullest part of getting shit done (financing shit completion). Being able to drive voluntary player activity, based on mutual self-interest, getting fucking murdered as a side-effect or by someone who envies what you have (without the staff being behind it or intervening to stop it) is the important part of playing. Money is the least interesting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2016 5:49:38 GMT -5
The economy of the game is still busted but I honestly have trouble believing that matters. If you had a crapton of money and didn't have the staff stepping on your throat every time you tried to do something with it, you'd focus on getting things done. Role playing things. Actually making character concepts you bring to fruition rather than the tedium of trying to win at Arm. It won't matter to you what you grind to afford what you need. Eventually you'd just suspend your disbelief automatically for what is always the dullest part of getting shit done (financing shit completion). Being able to drive voluntary player activity, based on mutual self-interest, getting fucking murdered as a side-effect or by someone who envies what you have (without the staff being behind it or intervening to stop it) is the important part of playing. Money is the least interesting. But but but... Where B is supposed to be A plus other, where A is the economy and B is merchant shit, and B doesn't feed from A in anything but figure... Idk, I think it'd lead to a deeper and more intuitive role-playing experience if it did. Less manual work from staff too. |
|
|
|
Post by BitterFlashback on Jun 30, 2016 2:21:13 GMT -5
No, look, the economy has always been fucked. Fixing it would be helpful. The reality, though, is the game's activity level has fluctuated with little to no regard to the economy working, which is easy to deduce since the economy has never worked. Players feeling like they can accomplish something in the world (or just among their fellow PCs) has always been in the top tier of player-driven activity motivators.
Getting players back into the game is more important than balancing out the money grind so that there's finally a range beyond poverty and shitting gold Nyr Lannister style.
|
|
|
|
Post by sirra on Jul 21, 2016 0:41:17 GMT -5
Hilariously over-complicated, as usual. With a bunch've caveats, and all of it basically coming down to staffer discretion at the end. Like when Nyr wrote up that 3 page masterpiece for renting a warehouse, and at the very end, it notes that the templar PCs have no authority to approve it. They take it to their superiors (staff), and then staff gives the response based on various intangibles, like if they feel you're right for the game, etc.
The economy of this game would rapidly unfuck itself if they ever actually implemented scarcity (instead of ...free food and water for 90% of the playerbase in a survival-based game), and stopped trying to micromanage it.
|
|
. Anyways, it's perfectly reasonable to disagree with the above, but I just wanted to regurgitate what I'm suggesting and what I'm not. Encouraging people to spend time not playing sounds ridiculous because it is.
