Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
valor

C&C Weekly Discussion/Poll: Coins

Recommended Posts

I never said outright currency alone was the problem (maybe in my first reaction, but I came to senses).

 

Regarding the bolded part, I have seen to many ambitious projects flop to be confident. We have almost no information so instead of being confident I try to give ACE as many angles possible. 

Well, having been involved in an EK thread or two, we know that the export can be adjusted.

That is the real link here.

 

Unlike many other games that create currency out of nothing (most MMOs do this, even EVE I think), this is simply not going to be true here.

Someone will have to go get them, craft them AND get out of the campaigns with them.

Just like with all resources.

 

You wont be able to sit in a safe place and make money, that have not been through this process.

This is why I insist, that the campaigns will probably determine value of currency above any RW money investment.

 

And, just to bring some more EK talk into this.

Sure, you can buy parcels and buildings.

But what are you going to use these empty places for? Decoration?

You still have to fill the buildings with things that makes them useful, such as thralls and relics (only ones we know of right now)

It is not like you get a free NPC vendor for money and he will have to be replaced (and so will the other thralls and relics)

 

If someone manages to win camapaigns and bring out a ton of money. Good for them. 

They most likely deserved it.


 

This game looks like a larger scale version of marvel heroes so far with forts.  - nephiral marts 7 2015

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am pretty sure we would have figured out a set value for things. That is our nature. Be it stones or chickens.

This would have given the same problems.

 

As for the value of different resources being higher in a barter system. How so?

If I didn't have enough wood, I would have had to barter for some with something else. I would be pretty consistent with the worth of it though.

The only thing that have changed is, that now we can all agree on currency being the baseline.

All the other resources should still be in play too.

 

About the last point, wasn't it expected that we could obtain parcels and buildings from other places than the store?

And wouldn't they then have had a "worth" tied to them, relative to what they cost?

Since we would have decided what we used as currency (before actual currency) would those prices not have effected how much stone, wood, marble etc would have been worth also?

 

I am struggling to see the problem, but I do want to understand.

As I see it, the currency is simply another player obtained resource, that can be crafted into an item that we all decide to use when we buy and sell.

The value of it might be effected by the store items, but that was bound to happen with anything we used to buy and sell with.

In my opinion, the real difference is in how useful this currency will be in campaigns. I see very little value in it in the campaigns, compared to resources you can actually build or craft with.

Which means that it will have be an odd thing to have in the place where it is obtained.

Maybe we wont even be crafting the currency in the campaigns much, but rather keep the resources raw. Then the people interested in the EKs could export it and craft it into coins at their EKs.

I mean, after all, what are you going to buy in a campaign?

 

 

I agree with all your post, with the exception of the campaign aspect, unless you just mean you expect trading to be more prevalent in campaigns, than converting to coinage. But, with campaigns lasting as long as they do, I would expect a huge amount of commerce will be done there. If coins are easier to carry, then I think we'll see the use of the currency in campaigns too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like it, makes it a bit more active for the people who are more focused on the economy. (Normally they just farm up and sit with the money, not really anything to do or any competition. 

Also i look most forward to the transportations of all the goods, being money or what not :>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like it, makes it a bit more active for the people who are more focused on the economy. (Normally they just farm up and sit with the money, not really anything to do or any competition. 

Also i look most forward to the transportations of all the goods, being money or what not :>

Yeah agree. Some are saying this simplifies the economy but to me it adds another layer on top of the system as we already knew it. When to convert to coins, when to use coins, when to transport coins etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with all your post, with the exception of the campaign aspect, unless you just mean you expect trading to be more prevalent in campaigns, than converting to coinage. But, with campaigns lasting as long as they do, I would expect a huge amount of commerce will be done there. If coins are easier to carry, then I think we'll see the use of the currency in campaigns too.

We might see some.

 

However, I do not expect guilds to do much trading within them.

Does not seem like the way to go when you are trying to win a war.

I don't see much trading between guilds really. Could be between some allied guilds.

 

I could be totally wrong and most players will enter campaigns and try to make friends with everyone. 

That is just not my experience.

 

There will be plenty of crafting though.

 

(And before someone say they want to be a travelling merchant. We kill you and take your stuff before someone else does. I mean... we will confiscate your smuggler wares)


 

This game looks like a larger scale version of marvel heroes so far with forts.  - nephiral marts 7 2015

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

snip

 

There are no flaws in your reasoning here, but you fail to address why coins having a fixed reference value is not a reason to be little concerned.

 

If a parcel costs 50 coins/5$ and VIP (1 month) costs 15$, then the reference value is 0.10$ per coin. Nothing the player does can change this 0.10$ per coin value. If the actual value of the coin is too different from the reference value, players can exploit this (Arbitrage), causing the actual value to converge back to the reference value.

 

Of course, this may not be as big a problem as I make it out to be. We do not know how important certain items or store items will be. But it is a concern because this limits the player influence and instead partially limits the value of the coin to a fixed value set by ACE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's still market-driven, because the players will determine how many coins a "ticket" is worth.

I don't see how, not if we can buy ek buildings with those same coins. :huh:

 

For example: Say a small keep is worth 100,000 gold coins, which is currently $75 in the store. Assuming a vip ticket is worth $14.99 (the price of a WoW sub) that ticket would then be worth a fixed price of 20,000 gold coins.

 

I've seen this happen before in mmo's that allowed you to sell cashshop items for gold, most recently archeage. The prices fluctuated a bit, but not by much. Everything remained at a relative price to each other up until I stopped playing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't see anything is changed. I certainly would like to have the UI support for it but people will still barter it will just take more interaction. This saves them important time not having to develop a player configurable conversion for every item in the game. Even when they first told us they talked about being able to shape gold into coins to make them easier to carry. You could still use them as currency then along with anything else.

Edited by oberon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We might see some.

 

However, I do not expect guilds to do much trading within them.

Does not seem like the way to go when you are trying to win a war.

I don't see much trading between guilds really. Could be between some allied guilds.

 

I could be totally wrong and most players will enter campaigns and try to make friends with everyone. 

That is just not my experience.

 

There will be plenty of crafting though.

 

(And before someone say they want to be a travelling merchant. We kill you and take your stuff before someone else does. I mean... we will confiscate your smuggler wares)

Well then, I could see that, but that really only applies to a GvG campaign setting. If you are in a 3 or 12 faction campaign, there will be merchants all over the place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are no flaws in your reasoning here, but you fail to address why coins having a fixed reference value is not a reason to be little concerned.

 

If a parcel costs 50 coins/5$ and VIP (1 month) costs 15$, then the reference value is 0.10$ per coin. Nothing the player does can change this 0.10$ per coin value. If the actual value of the coin is too different from the reference value, players can exploit this (Arbitrage), causing the actual value to converge back to the reference value.

 

Of course, this may not be as big a problem as I make it out to be. We do not know how important certain items or store items will be. But it is a concern because this limits the player influence and instead partially limits the value of the coin to a fixed value set by ACE.

Well why are we basing the value of stuff based on the cash store? Pretty much everything besides the VIP tokens are EK only things and stuff like mount skins probably. Currency and the economy should be based on what player to player transactions determine, ie how much Plate Helms of uber are selling for, how much fancy rainbow mount is selling for etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how, not if we can buy ek buildings with those same coins. :huh:

 

For example: Say a small keep is worth 100,000 gold coins, which is currently $75 in the store. Assuming a vip ticket is worth $14.99 (the price of a WoW sub) that ticket would then be worth a fixed price of 20,000 gold coins.

 

I've seen this happen before in mmo's that allowed you to sell cashshop items for gold, most recently archeage. The prices fluctuated a bit, but not by much. Everything remained at a relative price to each other up until I stopped playing.

 

While not a fixed price of 20k coins, the price will always converge back. If instead the value of a ticket is at 10k, on average, people will stop buying VIP with real money, causing the price to go up. If the price is instead at 40k, people on average will buy tickets to sell just for coins so they can get other items at discounted value. This causes the price to go down. 

 

No matter what the player does, the price always wants to be close to 20k, like you said. This limits 'players will determine how many coins a ticket is worth' severely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are no flaws in your reasoning here, but you fail to address why coins having a fixed reference value is not a reason to be little concerned.

 

If a parcel costs 50 coins/5$ and VIP (1 month) costs 15$, then the reference value is 0.10$ per coin. Nothing the player does can change this 0.10$ per coin value. If the actual value of the coin is too different from the reference value, players can exploit this (Arbitrage), causing the actual value to converge back to the reference value.

 

Of course, this may not be as big a problem as I make it out to be. We do not know how important certain items or store items will be. But it is a concern because this limits the player influence and instead partially limits the value of the coin to a fixed value set by ACE.

It will have an effect on the perceived value of whatever currency we use (be it coins or stones) yes.

Absolutely.

 

But I would hope there is many other factors playing in here, such as the listed thralls (someone have to export these), building materials (Oh, do buildings come prebuild or as a template?), what people want/need to import etc.

 

In the end, most comes from the campaigns. Not everyone can win in the campaigns and not everyone can bring out things. Or at least not the same amount.

 

A successful guild will not place as much value on certain items, as the guy that can't even afford to build a single house.


 

This game looks like a larger scale version of marvel heroes so far with forts.  - nephiral marts 7 2015

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This might need to be solved with a 2-currency system.

 

Currency A

  • Obtainable in game
  • Carried in your inventory
  • Crafted, looted, reclaimed - almost everything Todd said it would be

Currency B

  • Purchased with real $$$
  • Used for purchasing from the Crowfall store
  • Exchangeable with Currency A

 

Yes, this looks a lot like F2P currency models, but it's also a model that works.  You nicely decouple the crafting rate and the real value of Currency A while still allowing it to be powerful enough to buy parcels.


Nazdar

Proud member of The Hunger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well then, I could see that, but that really only applies to a GvG campaign setting. If you are in a 3 or 12 faction campaign, there will be merchants all over the place.

It will still be guild based in the faction program.

Not like we are going to have 100 single players building castles etc.

Would be an odd system then.

 

But, there will be more guild to guild trading there, sure.

Would still be in a factions best interest to help their allies though.


 

This game looks like a larger scale version of marvel heroes so far with forts.  - nephiral marts 7 2015

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ACE stated the intent behind EKs was for player to be able to create rule sets, economies, and mechanics themselves with it (emergent gameplay). You are the ruler and you create the laws.

As far as economies go, if I know Valor's LotD EK accepts gold/logs/and mlp figurines, everyone within cirolle's accepts razors (for shaving his head ofc)/iron/swords, and everyone within oberon's accepts armor/diamonds/leather....as these EK's gain notoriety, I'll know which ones to visit.

If Cirolle makes the best armor, but all I have are gold ingots...I know I need to go to Valor's to trade my gold for iron, then to cirolle's for armor. This is all just enhanced by additional rulesets/sanctions/player-driven mechanics/taxes each EK offers and how many players they've enticed to set shop in their EKs.


☆ We are in a positive posting drought, so just post. Be the change you want the forums to be. Go wild. Just follow your positive posting star. ☆
☆:*´¨`*:.•.¸¸.•´¯`•.♥.•´¯`•.¸¸.•..:*´¨`*:.☆

(¯`’•.¸*♫♪♥(✿◠‿◠)♥♫♪*¸.•’´¯) Member of the Pro-ACE Club (¯`’•.¸*♫♪♥(✿◠‿◠)♥♫♪*¸.•’´¯)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well why are we basing the value of stuff based on the cash store? Pretty much everything besides the VIP tokens are EK only things and stuff like mount skins probably. Currency and the economy should be based on what player to player transactions determine, ie how much Plate Helms of uber are selling for, how much fancy rainbow mount is selling for etc.

 

Because it converges the value of the coin to a fixed value set by ACE. This in turn limits the influence the player has on the market.

 

Whether that is a problem at all remains to be seen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ACE stated the intent behind EKs was for player to be able to create rule sets, economies, and mechanics themselves with it (emergent gameplay). You are the ruler and you create the laws.

 

As far as economies go, if I know Valor's LotD EK accepts gold/logs/and mlp figurines, everyone within cirolle's accepts razors (for shaving his head ofc)/iron/swords, and everyone within oberon's accepts armor/diamonds/leather....as these EK's gain notoriety, I'll know which ones to visit.

 

If Cirolle makes the best armor, but all I have are gold ingots...I know I need to go to Valor's to trade my gold for iron, then to cirolle's for armor. This is all just enhanced by additional rulesets/sanctions/player-driven mechanics/taxes each EK offers and how many players they've enticed to set shop in their EKs.

As always personal preference. One players enhanced gameplay is anothers monotonous annoyance.

Edited by pang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As always personal preference. One players enhanced gameplay is anothers monotonous annoyance.

Monotonous is exchanging everything you find for the same singular currency over and over. Monotonous is carrying the same economic resource (coins) instead of knowing when to diversify for trading.

 

Bartering is the opposite of monotonous, and requires actual thinking before stepping foot somewhere.

Edited by primal

☆ We are in a positive posting drought, so just post. Be the change you want the forums to be. Go wild. Just follow your positive posting star. ☆
☆:*´¨`*:.•.¸¸.•´¯`•.♥.•´¯`•.¸¸.•..:*´¨`*:.☆

(¯`’•.¸*♫♪♥(✿◠‿◠)♥♫♪*¸.•’´¯) Member of the Pro-ACE Club (¯`’•.¸*♫♪♥(✿◠‿◠)♥♫♪*¸.•’´¯)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ACE stated the intent behind EKs was for player to be able to create rule sets, economies, and mechanics themselves with it (emergent gameplay). You are the ruler and you create the laws.

 

As far as economies go, if I know Valor's LotD EK accepts gold/logs/and mlp figurines, everyone within cirolle's accepts razors (for shaving his head ofc)/iron/swords, and everyone within oberon's accepts armor/diamonds/leather....as these EK's gain notoriety, I'll know which ones to visit.

 

If Cirolle makes the best armor, but all I have are gold ingots...I know I need to go to Valor's to trade my gold for iron, then to cirolle's for armor. This is all just enhanced by additional rulesets/sanctions/player-driven mechanics/taxes each EK offers and how many players they've enticed to set shop in their EKs.

But...

 

If I could go to Valors and buy iron, then go sell it at Oberons AND buy some bisquits there, and THEN go and sell those to you, I would FINALLY have made enough money to buy some shaving cream.


 

This game looks like a larger scale version of marvel heroes so far with forts.  - nephiral marts 7 2015

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will still be guild based in the faction program.

Not like we are going to have 100 single players building castles etc.

Would be an odd system then.

 

But, there will be more guild to guild trading there, sure.

Would still be in a factions best interest to help their allies though.

 

Well, we'll see how it shakes out. But, now that I think about it, I don't think their visions for campaigns was a continual battleground, where every person you see not affiliated with your guild is KOS. Certainly there will be some groups that want to play that way, but we'll see what wins out in the end. I'm pretty sure they envision it being just like an MMO world with a time limit and open PvP. Back in the good old days when open PvP was a thing (UO), you still had a lot of trade and not everybody just tried to murder everyone they saw. I think there will be a lot of time to be concerned with getting other things done that just waging physical war, and you very well may want to trade and barter to make that happen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...