Goblin Squad Member
|
My point is that unless in-game gold is drained as fast as it is created, you will have inflation creep.
Coin will accumulate faster that it is drained. That is desirable. Players should accumulate wealth as they play. No one wants to be as broke on day 1000 as they were on day 1.
The dangers of inflation are something Goblinworks is aware of, and plan to work to control.
In general, more coin will enter the game than leave it. This will allow characters to accumulate wealth, and it ensures that there's ample capital available for loans and gifts. But when the value of M increases in an economic system, it often drives inflation. So like real–world central bankers, Goblinworks will have to carefully manage the size of our M, watching to see that inflation doesn't overwhelm the game's economy. Luckily, unlike real–world bankers, we have 100% visibility into how much coin exists, who has it, how it is being used, and what prices are charged for goods across the whole game world. So we can operate with a kind of Olympian perspective unavailable to our real–world counterparts. We can adjust our economic system with precision, changing the amount of coin that enters via faucets, and controlling the amount that exits via drains. There's no perfect stable point; M will have to be constantly adjusted over time in response to player activity. It's just one of those maintenance tasks that comes with operating a sandbox MMO.
You will never eliminate gold sellers unfortunately. All you can do is ameliorate the situation by providing an outlet such as the training time can be resold for gold and also cracking down hard on anyone buying gold from a gold seller.
The way Eve deals with such things is by confiscation of the money, buy 1 billion isk and they deduct it from your wallet. If this leaves you negative tough you won't actually earn any money till you clear the deficit. Is that harsh? Yes but it is better in my view than an outright ban.
@Dario
What I would like to see is Goblinworks using the levers to shake things up occasionally so that if the kingdoms seem to be too settled for a while adjust the levers to get things moving
For example
One of the things that players use a lot of is oak wood for making weapons, buildings, siege engines. The kingdoms have settled into a peaceful rut. Npc foresters start reporting a strange blight affecting the oak groves( goblin works turn down the oak respawn rate slowly over time to say 20% of normal).
This creates an oak shortage causing kingdoms to move to secure supply, gives potential pve hooks the search for a cure which may require a series of dungeons to be run etc with several groups having found part of the answer, a scroll fragment in that dungeon, part of a stone tablet over there etc.
After a bit they can then return the oak respawn to normal
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess I have another point.
Gold farmers turn up the "faucet" by maximizing the created gold, if they can't just find exploits to duplicate it. How do you combat this?
You can't just open the "drain" wider or turn the "faucet" down as that screws your regular population.
You turn the gold farmers into content, and cut down their profits by making legitimate channels cheaper, safer, and/or more convenient than illicit channels.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I guess I have another point.
Gold farmers turn up the "faucet" by maximizing the created gold, if they can't just find exploits to duplicate it. How do you combat this?
You can't just open the "drain" wider or turn the "faucet" down as that screws your regular population.
I'd say, given the 'single server' situation and how closely they will be monitoring the market, if a player starts to actively destabilize the game via the market, there may be bounties put on them by their rivals.
Failing that, I'm fairly certain somebody at Goblin Works would take the player aside and ask them to slow down. Failure to do so will result in the old tried-and-true blue-lightning-bolts-on-a-cloudless-day situation.
Do you REALLY want to piss off the people who can pretty much put anything they like in the game to mess with you and go "oh, the RNG did it!"
Take a look at games like WoW, were Gold Farmers effectively price-out newer players from even touching the Auction Houses until higher levels, forcing new players to have to slog through the whole profession grind manually, IN ADDITION to fighting for nodes against max-level farm-bots on 320% flying mounts?
Yeah, smart money is they take a hint from the EvE system and ensure that it's damn difficult for anyone to 'lock' down a market, and if they do, it's easier for the Mods to generate a 'problem' for the unrepentant Gold Farmer who is causing issues for other people in the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
How hard would it be to hold a real-time auction with in-game items, like a PC standing in a town square? Even if it were just for flavor, it would be nice to see occasionally.
Also, would there likely be any non RP reason a player would choose that route over a system generated AH?
I have not really played any MMOs, but I imagine this has come up before.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The contract system suggests there will be a parallel escrow system. The escrow system might then be built to ensure player auctions will be reliable, and money bid will be paid and items won will be secured. If all that is present it is little different from an auction house anyway, save that to auction or bid the player must be locally present.
One "interesting" use of the contract system in eve is for contracts to haul. These sort of contracts generally require the person accepting the contract to provide collateral. I think this is definitely something we should be all asking Goblinworks to ensure this ability to make it into the game otherwise you will have haulers stealing the cargo left right and centre.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
They're planning a collateral system.
Loan Contract
On acceptance, an amount of coin, as described in the contract, is transferred from the offering party to the accepting party. The accepting party agrees to transfer another specified amount of coin to the offering party within a specified time frame. Can only be accepted by one party. The coin to be loaned is placed in escrow on creation of the contract. The contract can also specify a manifest of collateral items which must be provided by the accepting party and which are placed in escrow on acceptance. If the contract is abandoned or terminated by the accepting party, characters in the accepting party will gain a 30-day criminal flag, any items in escrow will be transferred to the offering party, and the alignment of characters in the accepting party will shift towards chaotic. Can only be seen and accepted at the location where the contract is offered.
[...]
Transportation Contract
The accepting party agrees to move a designated manifest from one location to another location within a specific time frame. Can only be accepted by one party. Abandonment of the contract or failure to fulfill the terms forfeits an amount of coin held in escrow as defined by the contract. The items on the manifest are placed in escrow on creation of the contract and are delivered to the storage of the accepting party on acceptance of the contract at the defined location.
Emphasis mine. So between these two we have item collateral and coin collateral. Only the latter is specified in relation to transport contracts, but I'd be surprised if we don't have either as an option for them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One "interesting" use of the contract system in eve is for contracts to haul. These sort of contracts generally require the person accepting the contract to provide collateral. I think this is definitely something we should be all asking Goblinworks to ensure this ability to make it into the game otherwise you will have haulers stealing the cargo left right and centre.
Transportation Contract
The accepting party agrees to move a designated manifest from one location to another location within a specific time frame. Can only be accepted by one party. Abandonment of the contract or failure to fulfill the terms forfeits an amount of coin held in escrow as defined by the contract. The items on the manifest are placed in escrow on creation of the contract and are delivered to the storage of the accepting party on acceptance of the contract at the defined location.
I think they're on top of it :)
[Edit] Dario'ed!
@Dario
Good to hear must have missed that in the blog somehow or maybe just been so long since I read it. Of course this will now be also used by the unscrupulous bandits for extra profits but we can't have everything :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So between these two we have item collateral and coin collateral. Only the latter is specified in relation to transport contracts, but I'd be surprised if we don't have either as an option for them.
No need, really. If the Transportation Party doesn't have enough Coin to cover the Collateral for the Transportation Contract, they just get a Loan Contract where they put up the items - maybe even getting both the Loan and the Transportation Contract from the same other party.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So between these two we have item collateral and coin collateral. Only the latter is specified in relation to transport contracts, but I'd be surprised if we don't have either as an option for them.No need, really. If the Transportation Party doesn't have enough Coin to cover the Collateral for the Transportation Contract, they just get a Loan Contract where they put up the items - maybe even getting both the Loan and the Transportation Contract from the same other party.
Yeah, there's a workaround, but it seems like a gainless limitation when the contract system already has the ability to handle both scenarios.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yeah, there's a workaround...
It doesn't feel like a "workaround" to me.
It would be virtually impossible for the party issuing the Transportation Contract to be able to specify which combination of items would be accepted beforehand.
If the party accepting the Transportation Contract wants to use Items instead of Coin as Collateral, then they're going to have to get the issuing party (or any other party) to accept that their Items are equivalent to the required amount of Coin. That's a Loan Contract.
How would you implement a system that allowed Items to be used as Collateral otherwise?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What is it, from a system perspective, that makes a transportation contract different from a loan contract? If you can do it in one, what is the technical limitation preventing it in another?
In order to accept this contract, you must deliver X (an amount of coin/the items on this list) into escrow. Upon doing so, you will receive Y (items to transport/an amount of coin) that I placed in escrow on the creation of the contract. Upon completion of a task (delivering the items to the specified location/paying back an amount of coin), your (coin/items) will be released to you from escrow, and you will receive the agreed payment. Should you fail to complete the task in the time allotted, the (coin/items) you placed in escrow as collateral will be forfeited to me.
One reason that it is different is if you put coins in escrow and default I have my coins, if however you put items in then while I have items they are in the place where I wanted my stuff transported from. If I wanted stuff transported because I didn't want to do it myself why would I want to go fetch whatever goods you placed in escrow. In addition I now have to also find a buyer for my new goods.
I wouldn't necessarily be adverse if you can select cash only for collateral however with the normal caveat that the development cost is not more than the feature is worth
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In order to accept this contract, you must deliver X (an amount of coin/the items on this list) into escrow.
So, just the items on that particular list, but not other items of equal value?
Once you have the issuer (or any other party) determining the value of the Items the transporter wishes to use as Collateral, then it seems the simplest course would be to use a Loan Contract.
However, the fact that it doesn't make sense to me to combine them doesn't mean that it actually doesn't make sense to combine them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In order to accept this contract, you must deliver X (an amount of coin/the items on this list) into escrow.So, just the items on that particular list, but not other items of equal value?
Once you have the issuer (or any other party) determining the value of the Items the transporter wishes to use as Collateral, then it seems the simplest course would be to use a Loan Contract.
However, the fact that it doesn't make sense to me to combine them doesn't mean that it actually doesn't make sense to combine them.
Scenario A) You wish items transported, and put up a collateral requirement of 1000 coin on the contract. I now contact you (or someone else) to set up a separate contract where I put two diamonds in escrow on a loan contract, and you give me 1000 coin. I then turn around and put 1000 coin in escrow to accept the original transport contract.
Scenario B) You wish items transported, and put up a collateral requirement of 1000 coin or two diamonds on the contract. I put two diamonds in escrow and take the transport contract.
You seem to be suggesting that A is simpler than B. Perhaps you can explain where my understanding of your argument is mistaken.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You seem to be suggesting that A is simpler than B.
Not at all. I am suggesting that scenario B is extremely unlikely. There are virtually limitless combinations of Items that have a value of approximately 1,000 Coins. The idea that the issuer will choose "two diamonds" and that the transporter has "two diamonds" seems extremely unlikely to me.
Much more likely Scenario B in my mind: The transporter tells the issuer "Hey, I don't have 1,000 Coins, but I have these two diamonds", at which point the issuer says "Yeah, I'll take that instead". At that point, the issuer can either modify the Transport Contract to allow "two diamonds" as Collateral, or he can simply loan the issuer 1,000 Coins for the "two diamonds".
If the issuer knows ahead of time what items the transporter will want to hock, then yes, your idea makes sense. I'm simply pointing out that the likelihood of the issuer knowing this beforehand seems extremely low.