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

"Hawala"


Recommended Posts

Curious what folks think of the following idea:

 

Back in the weird old day, transporting money + resources across the world was extremely difficult.  Transporting physical resources was extremely expensive.  Transporting large sums of money was incredible risky.

 

This lead to the emergency of various types of banking houses.

 

I could deposit my funds with a bank in London.

I / a family member / a trusted associte could with draw the funds from another branch of the same bank that was located in Istanbul.

 

In the muslim world, this banking system is often referred to as Hawala.  However, there are any number of other analogues.

 

I'd love to see a similar system in games.

 

If you build significant latency and risk into the transfer of resources between Eternal Kingdoms, you'll create a market opportunity for guilds to act as banks.  Guilds could operate branches in different Eternal Kingdoms.  Players could make deposits in one EK and then pull the money (sans a small comission) in the other EK.

 

From my perspective, this would improve the game significantly.

 

1.  It creates an opportunity for players to be more actively involved in the economy

2.  You have the chance for epic betrayals as shifty bankers run off with your hard won resources.

3.  If it becomes difficult to transport resources, you can have resource imbalances across EK.  In turn, this will create incentives for crafting and trade

4.  The banks will serve as a resource sink

5.  Imagine the fun you can have if fractional reserve banking takes off, especially if you have a bank run!

 

If you want politics and high drama, you need to build a system that incentivizes politics and high drama.  In turn, this means that you want friction in the economy and allow the players to work to solve this!

Edited by narsille

WAZ6Fov.png

"The cinnabar is a lie"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why?  Coins are minted from ore and consume an inventory slot.  All items reside in:

  1. Account Inventory (outside the CW) not in an EK.
  2. On a character (within a CW)
  3. In a storage container/caravan (within a CW and possibly within an EK)
  4. or in an Embargo slot.

With the above, I don't see why the OP would be necessary.

 

If we have the option of storage containers within our EKs, which have an associated permission system, players can establish a "bank" system on their own and even offer a % interest over time (which is the only benefit to any player bank system).  The problem will be with trust.  The mechanics will already exist for players to implement it though, without anything extra added.

Edited by Nyt

> Suddenly, a Nyt appears in the discussion...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ummm...not sure this is a good idea at all.

 

 

 

 

Transporting large sums of money was incredible risky.

 

 

It sounds like you want a way to skirt the risk of running around a campaign world with currency/ore on your person for fear of getting ganked and losing it.  It's probably one of the most anti-Crowfall things I could think of.  Moving your resources is supposed to be risky.

[@--(o.O)@]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OP isn't talking about campaigns at all.  He (?) is trying to make economic logistics in the EK's risky.

 

The idea's a nonstarter but it's not for the reasons you think if you didn't read the post.

Official "Bad Person" of Crowfall

"I think 1/3rd of my postcount is telling people that we aren't turning into a PvE / casual / broad audience game." -

Tully

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Coming from EVE, personally I like anything that expands the purpose of the EK. I wish the EK represented the metagame of CF and was not a glorified player lobby, but alas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Coming from EVE, personally I like anything that expands the purpose of the EK. I wish the EK represented the metagame of CF and was not a glorified player lobby, but alas.

There is quite a bit of metagame with EKs... for those that understand and see the possibilities.  EKs are like having 1000s of sandboxes, varying in sizes surrounding a giant sandbox (CW) with 1-way resource chutes between them.  Each EK is similar to using a jump gate to a specific sector... just owned by a specific player.

> Suddenly, a Nyt appears in the discussion...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sounds like you want a way to skirt the risk of running around a campaign world with currency/ore on your person for fear of getting ganked and losing it.  It's probably one of the most anti-Crowfall things I could think of.  Moving your resources is supposed to be risky.

 

The way I read it at first was that the banks themselves would still need to travel in campaigns with the coins in caravans. Moving around those really large sums of coin would be incredible risky and would increase the fun of caravans a lot. On re-reading the OP I misunderstood the suggestion completely it seems. I blame the late hour. I agree this would totally diminish the risk of moving coin. Like removed!

ZCcquVD.png

THE most active European Crowfall community. Join us now!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If something like this were to happen in the game, it should invented and implemented by the players.  ACE doesn't need to develop or program it.  If a player(s) wants to run a bank from multiple locations, great! More power to them.  That's the joys of a sandbox, we can make of it what we want. 

 

If players want to do it, then they can do it.  Absolutely no need for ACE to do it for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OP isn't talking about campaigns at all.  He (?) is trying to make economic logistics in the EK's risky.

Read the post, and am very familiar with hawala.  It's done because of the risk of moving money.  What risk is there in moving money across EK's?  It doesn't make sense, so I assumed he meant moving in CW's with management happening in EK's.  Guess not, as such it still doesn't make sense.

[@--(o.O)@]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While it is an interesting idea... essentially banking with zero oversight... there is no reason for it in the Eternal Kingdoms.

 

You and your goods are safe there, and that is the point of them. Zero risk in the Eternal Kingdoms unless you enable PvP or join a PvP enabled kingdom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read the post, and am very familiar with hawala.  It's done because of the risk of moving money.  What risk is there in moving money across EK's?  It doesn't make sense, so I assumed he meant moving in CW's with management happening in EK's.  Guess not, as such it still doesn't make sense.

 

To be clear:  I am suggesting that having something like halawa in the game is desirable.

However, players won't develop this unless there is significant risk / latency in moving money between EKs.

 

Therefore, I am suggesting that I would like to see ACE implement latency in transferring $$$ / resources between EKs

 

For example, players can carry a small amount of stuff with them when they go visiting, however, transferring any significant amount of stuff requires shipping which might take a week or two in real time.

Edited by narsille

WAZ6Fov.png

"The cinnabar is a lie"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be clear:  I am suggesting that having something like halawa in the game is desirable.

However, players won't develop this unless there is significant risk / latency in moving money between EKs.

 

Therefore, I am suggesting that I would like to see ACE implement latency in transferring $$$ / resources between EKs

 

For example, players can carry a smally amount of stuff with them when they go visiting, however, transferring any significant amount of stuff requires shipping which might take a week or two in real time.

 

I definitely vote NO for this.  Sorry, but that idea is absolutely horrible and rather than adding value, it's nerfing the sandbox so a few players can control the flow of resources between EKs.  That would damper the economy for sure.

> Suddenly, a Nyt appears in the discussion...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I definitely vote NO for this.  Sorry, but that idea is absolutely horrible and rather than adding value, it's nerfing the sandbox so a few players can control the flow of resources between EKs.  That would damper the economy for sure.

 

I don't see this as nerfing the sandboxes...

 

Players still have the ability to export resources from campaigns to their Eternal Kingdoms.

Moreover, I am not suggesting that players be able to raid caravans than are going between kingdoms.

 

I am suggesting that if players want to send large amounts of resources from EK1 to EK2, it should take time for the resources to move and there should be costs associated with doing so.

 

If you're willing to wait a week, fine.  You can do so.  If you want the resources immediately, you can pay a surcharge to a bank and pay them when your ship comes in.

 

If you want a loan, you might chose to borrow resources in the hopes that you'll have some resources flowing out of a campaign real soon now.

 

Personally, I think that this type of friction has the potentially to significantly improve the economy.

 

Imagine a system in which shipping cost or the transport latency is a function of the volume that you need to ship...

This will encourage people to hip finished goods rather than raw materials.

 

If you eliminate friction from the game, it will encourage autarky.  If you incorportate friction, it will encourage players to build social systems to work around these imperfections.  In turn, this will create richer and more dynamic social interactions which are the lifeblood of these games.

WAZ6Fov.png

"The cinnabar is a lie"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see this as nerfing the sandboxes...

 

Players still have the ability to export resources from campaigns to their Eternal Kingdoms.

Moreover, I am not suggesting that players be able to raid caravans than are going between kingdoms.

 

I am suggesting that if players want to send large amounts of resources from EK1 to EK2, it should take time for the resources to move and there should be costs associated with doing so.

 

If you're willing to wait a week, fine.  You can do so.  If you want the resources immediately, you can pay a surcharge to a bank and pay them when your ship comes in.

 

If you want a loan, you might chose to borrow resources in the hopes that you'll have some resources flowing out of a campaign real soon now.

 

Personally, I think that this type of friction has the potentially to significantly improve the economy.

 

Imagine a system in which shipping cost or the transport latency is a function of the volume that you need to ship...

This will encourage people to hip finished goods rather than raw materials.

 

If you eliminate friction from the game, it will encourage autarky.  If you incorportate friction, it will encourage players to build social systems to work around these imperfections.  In turn, this will create richer and more dynamic social interactions which are the lifeblood of these games.

 

First, I believe we'll have a significant sized account bank for the resources anyone would need for their EKs.  So, there really is no caravan needed to move between EKs, which I doubt there will even be a mechanic for.  Players will select their character and either an EK or CW to join.  It's relatively simple.

 

Secondly, forcing all players to wait for resources to move between EKs adds absolutely no value to the game, and actually disrupts the EK economy.  I fail to see how adding latency/friction is going to add to the social system.  It's quite the opposite.  For example, if I wanted to purchase 20 stacks of iron ore from DirtySock's EK to help with the upgrading of buildings in my EK, I shouldn't have to wait for any amount of time to move those resources.  Those 20 stacks will go into my account inventory and be immediately available.

 

This also majorly disrupts the economy for those wishing to flip resources from one EK to another.  

 

Crowfall EKs are not statically located with linear jump points like in EvE.  They are instances, which are gated by the EK owner's set permissions and the size of the EK (which determines how many characters are able to join it).

> Suddenly, a Nyt appears in the discussion...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This also majorly disrupts the economy for those wishing to flip resources from one EK to another.  

 

 

Agreed.  However, I view this as a feature rather than a bug...

WAZ6Fov.png

"The cinnabar is a lie"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed.  However, I view this as a feature rather than a bug...

 

I view it as a needless major disruption to the ebb and flow of the economy within Crowfall.  It's absolutely unnecessary.  It adds no value.

> Suddenly, a Nyt appears in the discussion...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I view it as a needless major disruption to the ebb and flow of the economy within Crowfall.  It's absolutely unnecessary.  It adds no value.

 

As I said multiple times before, I believe that this will incentivize players and guilds to build social structures to mitigate the inefficiencies.

 

The Crowfall founders have citied "Game of Thrones" as an inspiration.  They want to create an environment with rich social interactions, betrayal, all around craziness.  Well, "Game of Thrones" has the Iron Bank of Braavos and it adds to the environment.

 

I'd like to see the rules set tweaked to encourage players to build these sorts of systems in game.  (And if it forces folks to think a bit about logistics, more the better)

WAZ6Fov.png

"The cinnabar is a lie"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is quite a bit of metagame with EKs... for those that understand and see the possibilities.  EKs are like having 1000s of sandboxes, varying in sizes surrounding a giant sandbox (CW) with 1-way resource chutes between them.  Each EK is similar to using a jump gate to a specific sector... just owned by a specific player.

 

Official posts seem to describe the EKs as entirely optional vanity realms coupled with marginal campaign world benefits. What metagame possibilities do you see in this arrangement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Official posts seem to describe the EKs as entirely optional vanity realms coupled with marginal campaign world benefits. What metagame possibilities do you see in this arrangement?

 

It's a sandbox... players and guilds are free to use them in ways that the devs may not even had intended.  There will be a lot of creative and beneficial uses of EKs... I wouldn't expect many to divulge that information either.  So, you'll just have to live with.... #reasons

> Suddenly, a Nyt appears in the discussion...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...