Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm just trying to rationalize why you would make threading powerful enough to dilute the armor/weapon economy? Why not reduce the maximum amount of items allowed to be "threaded" instead? I believe that could possibly solve the issue.
Maybe I am not understanding the core ideals of the game - will players really be able to thread every single piece of armor they are wearing? If so, why? In my opinion that seems to create more problems than solutions. If you are going to wear a powerful piece of armor that gives you a slight advantage over another player, in my opinion, you shouldn't always be guaranteed to keep it when slain because you can thread a large number of items. Doing so takes risk and reward out of the game which in turn seems (again, in my opinion) to water the game down a bit.
I hope you consider some of these things before solidifying your decision on the said topic.
PS - please don't use the dreaded purple scale to define item quality :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm just trying to rationalize why you would make threading powerful enough to dilute the armor/weapon economy? Why not reduce the maximum amount of items allowed to be "threaded" instead? I believe that could possibly solve the issue.
Because the loot monkies would rage quit if there was full player looting.
it's been said that you could probably thread most (if not all) of your gear at the newbie stage - wearing nothing but grey or while quality gear. The cost for threading high quality pieces raises so that the idea is you'll only be able to thread some of your items, and certainly not all.
I think Ryan's post about the economy becoming saturated with weapons and armor is mostly true, even under these conditions. If you die in PvP and your high quality gear wasn't threaded; it's still looted by the other player and thus NOT removed from the economy. The player either keeps the looted gear or sells it on the market - There has been no loss in the system.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Clynx,
Having known PKers in other games, much of what they looted off kills was salvaged for raw materials or sold off quickly to NPC vendors for the cash, since most decent level buyers only wanted high end goods (not some poor schmuck's looted nonmagical sword). Both salvage and resale to NPCs (if it's possible in PFO) would remove looted items from the economy.
I'm worried that a system that seems to place weapons and armor a separate economic category will reduce smithing to a race-to-the-top crafting skills, while makers of these buff oils/potions consumables will have a thriving income. A weapon and armor degrading system might help balance this out, but apparently the devs aren't interested in going that direction.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
it's been said that you could probably thread most (if not all) of your gear at the newbie stage - wearing nothing but grey or while quality gear. The cost for threading high quality pieces raises so that the idea is you'll only be able to thread some of your items, and certainly not all.
I think Ryan's post about the economy becoming saturated with weapons and armor is mostly true, even under these conditions. If you die in PvP and your high quality gear wasn't threaded; it's still looted by the other player and thus NOT removed from the economy. The player either keeps the looted gear or sells it on the market - There has been no loss in the system.
Oh, I see. I did not consider this situation. However, adding item duration would fix this issue, no? Maybe they just don't have the man power to implement that particular system :/
Many things within the game is being approached with the idea that if something is too powerful, or if say threading of arms and armor is unbalancing the economy, they will change things up to solve the issue. Nothing within the game is so set in stone. Even core things like the alignment system can be tweaked if its needed.
Several things concern me, but given their openness in their design process I'm not worried that they will just say "oh well, your stuck with it this way" like I've seen in most other games.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ultimately it is a matter of choice, and I think we should keep it that way. As long as that meaningful choice is kept, such that you may reach a point where threading that powerful sword AND powerful armor becomes a matter of choice that would be good. I can imagine someone powerful threading their arms and armor, and then losing all of their other useful items.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Many things within the game is being approached with the idea that if something is too powerful, or if say threading of arms and armor is unbalancing the economy, they will change things up to solve the issue. Nothing within the game is so set in stone. Even core things like the alignment system can be tweaked if its needed.
Several things concern me, but given their openness in their design process I'm not worried that they will just say "oh well, your stuck with it this way" like I've seen in most other games.
I think you are misunderstanding. I think the point Nevy was making, is out of the gate it is DESIGNED knowingly broken from the ground up. The dev's have out of the gate stated, they expect the economy on those items to be set to the point where they pile up in the economy, people search by dozens of key words, they are anything but scarce, and thus are considered an entirely different economy than almost anything else in the game.
I'm not saying I fully agree with this point, but I do have to say, there is a point here. This isn't the dev's fearing this particular market will be broken, it is them saying upfront, yeah it will be broken, but we are going to do everything we can to seperate it from the real economy.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Free markets cannot be broken. The expected emergent behavior is that about two slots of equipment will be threadable at the top end, and that there will be broad agreement regarding which slots are best to thread. Other equipment will typically not be threaded, resulting in a moving market for top-tier rings, cloaks, boots, hats, bracers, amulets...
I think that 'expected emergent behavior' is more accurate a description than 'design goal' in any case.
Having known PKers in other games, much of what they looted off kills was salvaged for raw materials or sold off quickly to NPC vendors for the cash, since most decent level buyers only wanted high end goods (not some poor schmuck's looted nonmagical sword). Both salvage and resale to NPCs (if it's possible in PFO) would remove looted items from the economy.
That's very true and I entirely agree that there is that avenue for removal from the system. In my mind, I was imagining 300 QL items when I said players would either retain or sell on the market. But if GW decided to make encumbrance a big factor in looting player husks, then it might be more beneficial to just salvage/destroy loot rather than haul it off.
Maybe assassins could earn recognition through some sort of mechanic that could prove they destroyed their target's armor rather than kept it. Sort of an honorable act of Bounty Hunting to say "My motive is to satisfy a bounty, not for personal acquisition of items." ... or something. The idea there is to have players want to destroy 300 QL items.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Many things within the game is being approached with the idea that if something is too powerful, or if say threading of arms and armor is unbalancing the economy, they will change things up to solve the issue. Nothing within the game is so set in stone. Even core things like the alignment system can be tweaked if its needed.
Several things concern me, but given their openness in their design process I'm not worried that they will just say "oh well, your stuck with it this way" like I've seen in most other games.
I think you are misunderstanding. I think the point Nevy was making, is out of the gate it is DESIGNED knowingly broken from the ground up. The dev's have out of the gate stated, they expect the economy on those items to be set to the point where they pile up in the economy, people search by dozens of key words, they are anything but scarce, and thus are considered an entirely different economy than almost anything else in the game.
I'm not saying I fully agree with this point, but I do have to say, there is a point here. This isn't the dev's fearing this particular market will be broken, it is them saying upfront, yeah it will be broken, but we are going to do everything we can to seperate it from the real economy.
That was my meaning indeed and I apologize if I was not clear. Anyhow, it just seems to me that there are so many ways to prevent overflow of the market. Item duration, an intermediate death system (in order to get ALL the loot from a player, you must choose to kill him [which takes a huge reputation hit] instead of just knocking him out and taking the minimal items on his person) or simply allowing only a few items to be "threaded."
I always think back to Ultima Online when talking about crafting. Ultima had a fantastic crafting system (and magical item system for that matter) filled with depth that really made the economy of the game shine. I know that many of the develops of Pathfinder Online are experienced with that particular game and system and I hope they consider some of Ultima's ideas (like item duration).
Let me add, many of the PO developer's ideas are really great and I am so excited to give it a try! I am only sharing my observations and experiences and I hope I'm not coming off as dissatisfied.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Effectively, starting characters are going to have sufficient threads to protect most of their gear and rarely suffer major setbacks from being killed. However, as players advance their characters, they'll have to start making meaningful decisions about death: Will you use mostly weaker gear so you don't have to risk much of it on death? Will you bind to a lot of shrines so you're always near your corpse for a better chance to recover everything before it's looted? Or will you bind only your most prized and best gear, risking the rest?
A character that has reached level 20 in a role and has all top-quality gear, meanwhile, may only be able to protect her armor and one weapon, three weapons and a miscellaneous item, or some other combination (but she could protect a larger amount of gear if she were willing to use weaker items for some of her slots). And a new player given a top-tier weapon may not be able to bind anything else but that.
That's a good point. A point to consider is also how many armor slots a character has and what kind of item slots he in general has.
Armor: suits of armor.
Belts: belts and girdles.
Body: robes and vestments.
Chest: mantles, shirts, and vests.
Eyes: eyes, glasses, and goggles.
Feet: boots, shoes, and slippers.
Hands: gauntlets and gloves.
Head: circlets, crowns, hats, helms, and masks.
Headband: headbands and phylacteries.
Neck: amulets, brooches, medallions, necklaces, periapts, and scarabs.
Ring (up to two): rings.
Shield: shields.
Shoulders: capes and cloaks.
Wrist: bracelets and bracers.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Many things within the game is being approached with the idea that if something is too powerful, or if say threading of arms and armor is unbalancing the economy, they will change things up to solve the issue. Nothing within the game is so set in stone. Even core things like the alignment system can be tweaked if its needed.
Several things concern me, but given their openness in their design process I'm not worried that they will just say "oh well, your stuck with it this way" like I've seen in most other games.
I think you are misunderstanding. I think the point Nevy was making, is out of the gate it is DESIGNED knowingly broken from the ground up. The dev's have out of the gate stated, they expect the economy on those items to be set to the point where they pile up in the economy, people search by dozens of key words, they are anything but scarce, and thus are considered an entirely different economy than almost anything else in the game.
I'm not saying I fully agree with this point, but I do have to say, there is a point here. This isn't the dev's fearing this particular market will be broken, it is them saying upfront, yeah it will be broken, but we are going to do everything we can to seperate it from the real economy.
That was my meaning indeed and I apologize if I was not clear. Anyhow, it just seems to me that there are so many ways to prevent overflow of the market. Item duration, an intermediate death system (in order to get ALL the loot from a player, you must choose to kill him [which takes a huge reputation hit] instead of just knocking him out and taking the minimal items on his person) or simply allowing only a few items to be "threaded."
I always think back to Ultima Online when talking about crafting. Ultima had a fantastic crafting system (and magical item system for that matter) filled with depth that really made the economy of the game shine. I know that many of the develops of Pathfinder Online are experienced with that...
It's been a good question. Threading makes a lot of sense and as indicated repercussion on item accumulation. I think as the weapons are tied to the skills, it sort of stuck that way, but for a good reason even if not a perfect economic one?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think there's a difference between implementing a known flawed mechanic, and implementing a mechanic that has limitations and acknowledging those limitations. Every MMO I've played has had market saturation and gold inflation over time (years). I've even seen devs come up with ways that effectively combat inflation, but makes for poor gameplay. A lot of Korean MMOs have a lot of random chance mechanics in their game. Where upgrading gear can fail. Risking large amounts of gold and items. The net result is for every "best item" you make, there are thousands destroyed in the process. Works really well at combating saturation and inflation... turns out players get terribly frustrated with such systems because they view it as a casino where they always lose. Farming up a ton of mats and money just to lose it all isn't great game design, despite it combating a market issue. (personally, I don't mind such a system... but I do think there could be better things to do in game than farm>gamble>farm>gamble>farm>...)
Just about anything you implement will have some sort of limitation or vulnerability to it. Especially, when those mechanics are meant to interact with others. And then you have to deal with how players ACTUALLY play the game - it may turn out that they abuse a system, or not play it in the way you thought they would.
Gear loss upon death is a great example. Why have threading? Well, if you simply lost all of your gear upon death; you suddenly find that players simply don't adventure in their best gear. They own the best, but never use and risk it. So much for having a risk system that punishes death.
With threading, you're more likely to have players suit up in (at least some of) their best armors. Still no risk their either? Well, that's why we have Death Curses. Players will thread their best stuff because they feel safe, but now they might still lose that gear. Maybe Death Curses should not be known to the player it is issued against to prevent them from banking their items safely. - Maybe player banks themselves should all have physical locations in settlements and should be subject to loss if that settlement loses an engagement of war.
What's important is GW informs us of the intent behind the design. If we can find a loophole in that design, they'll likely change it. But even then some of these game mechanics serve more than 1 purpose, and a change to solve 1 problem might create several more in another area of the game. It can be a tricky balance.
Many things within the game is being approached with the idea that if something is too powerful, or if say threading of arms and armor is unbalancing the economy, they will change things up to solve the issue. Nothing within the game is so set in stone. Even core things like the alignment system can be tweaked if its needed.
Several things concern me, but given their openness in their design process I'm not worried that they will just say "oh well, your stuck with it this way" like I've seen in most other games.
I think you are misunderstanding. I think the point Nevy was making, is out of the gate it is DESIGNED knowingly broken from the ground up. The dev's have out of the gate stated, they expect the economy on those items to be set to the point where they pile up in the economy, people search by dozens of key words, they are anything but scarce, and thus are considered an entirely different economy than almost anything elske in the game.
I'm not saying I fully agree with this point, but I do have to say, there is a point here. This isn't the dev's fearing this particular market will be broken, it is them saying upfront, yeah it will be broken, but we are going to do everything we can to seperate it from the real economy.
That was my meaning indeed and I apologize if I was not clear. Anyhow, it just seems to me that there are so many ways to prevent overflow of the market. Item duration, an intermediate death system (in order to get ALL the loot from a player, you must choose to kill him [which takes a huge reputation hit] instead of just knocking him out and taking the minimal items on his person) or simply allowing only a few items to be "threaded."
I always think back to Ultima Online when talking about crafting. Ultima had a fantastic crafting system (and magical item system for that matter) filled with depth that really made the economy of the game shine. I know that many of the develops of Pathfinder Online are experienced with that...
Ahhh, I see. No worries, I've got tot be one of the top obscure posters on the site :p
With this weeks blog the Devs revealed that they remain willing to adopt ideas we come up with. Their giving raw materials a quality rating similar to SWG was something I've seen being talked about in threads a few times. They might have had the idea from the start though. But it's very cool that PFO is going to be a game we all have input on. I think it'll be a much better game because of it. :)
So the suggestion to look at UOs system is a good one. I like their system as well. I know Stephen mentioned that they weren't thinking they need item decay. I get the feeling that they are just now working through the crafting/market systems, or they are ironing these systems out. So if item decay would help solve economic problems I'm sure they would consider it.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Free markets cannot be broken...More accurately, you aren't thinking of the ways free markets can be broken.
'Free' markets depend on the rule of Law.
Not at all. Free markets only exist in the absence of artificial costs or restrictions. It's possible for a free market to result in localized harm to a section of the economy, but that's the free market working.
The free market exists iff every time two individuals can execute a mutually beneficial transaction and have the same information about the world, they do so.
Free market does not mean that the clearance price (the price which is above all unfulfilled buyers and below all unfulfilled sellers) is reasonable in any sense. When people are gaining fun, information, or anything else perpendicular to coin from crafting, the fair price in coin will reflect that.
A free market where the supply has a minimum higher than the demand at free produces a fair value of less than free. I don't think the supply at the pricr of 'giving it away' will ever meet the demand at 'I'll pick that up', but it might get very close in some cases if consumption is almost zero.
I beg to differ on markets and the rule of law ... regulations and law are often the antithesis of free markets due to lobbyist pressure on lawmakers. People game he regulation writers to sway market power in their favour. On the flipside a lawless black market can be quite free. Where markets have become bogged down by regulations and/or corruption, the free market often finds another way ... try Googling 'System D.'
Having played EVE for a couple years I can honestly say their economy is sound and encourages emergent behaviour. I have read about a lot of market 'tactics' and full blown strategies (such as ganking certain classes of harvesters to drive up particular commodity prices) centered around the market economy. I trust this is what GW is aiming for. Threading would act as a slight break on the economy, which could easily be tweaked should it turn out to be crippling. As long as only a smallish amount of powerful gear can be threaded it should work IMO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If you die in PvP and your high quality gear wasn't threaded; it's still looted by the other player and thus NOT removed from the economy. The player either keeps the looted gear or sells it on the market - There has been no loss in the system.
Most recent information from dev blogs I know of says when you die in PVP: you keep the threaded, most unthreaded items in your posession are destroyed when someone else loots your husk, they only get a portion. So each death loot (or you don't get back to your husk otherwise?) is an item sink. And they're expecting a lot of PVP deaths and looting.
|
Most recent information from dev blogs I know of says when you die in PVP: you keep the threaded, most unthreaded items in your posession are destroyed when someone else loots your husk, they only get a portion. So each death loot (or you don't get back to your husk otherwise?) is an item sink. And they're expecting a lot of PVP deaths and looting.
+1
I think this mechanic alone will help keep the non-low magic market bustling at ALL times by more competitive and adventurous players. Sure they will keep their sword and maybe ring or armor, not to mention his bag of holding (VERY IMPORTANT), then when he does die, he will need 5+ MINIMUM things to replace if he gets looted.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I beg to differ on markets and the rule of law ... regulations and law are often the antithesis of free markets due to lobbyist pressure on lawmakers. People game he regulation writers to sway market power in their favour. On the flipside a lawless black market can be quite free. Where markets have become bogged down by regulations and/or corruption, the free market often finds another way ... try Googling 'System D.'
Having played EVE for a couple years I can honestly say their economy is sound and encourages emergent behaviour. I have read about a lot of market 'tactics' and full blown strategies (such as ganking certain classes of harvesters to drive up particular commodity prices) centered around the market economy. I trust this is what GW is aiming for. Threading would act as a slight break on the economy, which could easily be tweaked should it turn out to be crippling. As long as only a smallish amount of powerful gear can be threaded it should work IMO.
What we have is a basic disagreement on the nature of 'free' and 'freedom'. I doubt sincerely the disagreement can be resolved without moving the conversation into philosophical debate.
Suffice to say I disbelieve mercantile Darwinism, criminality, and commercial predation are characteristics of Freedom.
Both salvage and resale to NPCs (if it's possible in PFO) would remove looted items from the economy.
But not the money. The value. The cash. Items are a form of currency, they represent economic value. If you want to control mudflation, you have to control the cash as well as the items.
Most recent information from dev blogs I know of says when you die in PVP: you keep the threaded, most unthreaded items in your posession are destroyed when someone else loots your husk, they only get a portion. So each death loot (or you don't get back to your husk otherwise?) is an item sink. And they're expecting a lot of PVP deaths and looting.
They're designing the economy to be EVE Online with only minor modifications.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The market is really only as free as the mechanics that are built into the game allow it to be. You can't assume that all the normal rules of a RL free market economy will be in place because the restrictions (or toolsets) of game mechanics must be in place for that to be so. Should be interesting to see how free the economy can be made during the EE period as we see things shift in one direction or another.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
They're designing the economy to be EVE Online with only minor modifications.
However, those "minor modifications" as you put it make it far superior to EVE's, and a welcome change from that game's mechanics. I give Ryan and the Devs a +10 for what they are doing with the economy.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just trying to rationalize why you would make threading powerful enough to dilute the armor/weapon economy? Why not reduce the maximum amount of items allowed to be "threaded" instead? I believe that could possibly solve the issue.Because the loot monkies would rage quit if there was full player looting.
Believe it or not, some people just like to spend some time with friends without some jerk running over to shove his ass in everyone's face. Real world, we have ways of dealing with that kind of crap, but the anonymity of the internet strips away the petty troll's cowardice to reveal the sociopathy underneath. Features like threading are meant to minimize the damage such griefers do before they finally push too far and get banned. If you don't get that, you'll probably end up as one of them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Also remember that while you may have some threads you wont be able to have enough threads to protect all of your gear as you level and get better gear.
In addition setting a bind point in a local area is going to require threads. It will be interesting to see the cost of binding as something that is not constant. So binding near a specific area costs one or two threads, but if a settlement is being invaded in order for the invading country to bind there they might have to spend 10 threads while defenders only spend 5. This could add to the dynamic of seiges.
As long as threads are a limited resource that you cannot buy more of (through either XP or gold) then threads are fine. However if you can eventually spend xp or gold to buy enough threads to thread most if not all of your equipment then threading is a failure. Sure the first two years it might not matter, but after that when someone will spend all their "extra" exp on threads. So they will be a 20 level Wizard, and since they dont want to play another class they will just buy threads.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Threads increase as the character gets badges, but at the same time, better equipment takes more threads to be threaded, usually more than is gained by "leveling" via the badges, so as a character gets more advanced with better equipment he/she will have more threads, but will have to decide which gear to thread as that gear will require more threads, so that your character may only be able to thread a few items whereas a new character will have enough threads and low thread-count items to thread most everything.
Threads are also used to tie to new bind points, so that will also limit how much you can thread gear, as you will likely want to bind to a point of resurrection closer to where your character is adventuring so the run back to your husk when you die is shorter/faster. All this keeps the player constantly thinking how best to use/spend these threads. If you have a powerful (high "level") PC, with top of the line gear, you will likely end up only having a few items (maybe your armor and a weapon) threaded, while all other items are not. Now, the question is, for the player, do you take lesser gear with you so you can thread more, or do you risk some items to have an edge?
From GW's perspective, item loss will keep the economy going, so that even low end gear will always be purchased by those who explore further, thus into more dangerous areas to protect their better equipment from loss (they will leave those in storage until they really need them; of course you will never really know when you will really need them either). Crafters will always make coin this way, and adventurers will always be spending coin.
In this regard, the title of this thread is somewhat misleading as threading and the economy are tied because the number of threads and the thread count an item needs to be threaded ties into the coin economy. They are part of the same economy, just two different paths. Buy better gear, need more threads - simple as that. Not able to thread all your items, you will be buying new items. They are, excuse the pun, woven together well.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What the thread maker was talking about was, in a recent blog, the developers said that they expect most people to keep their main weapon and armored threaded all the time, on average. Therefore, the turnover rate on them will be much lower, and so there's a "second" economy of weapons/armor, that will flood with items.
I wanted to mention a few things about the economy that this blog and a few of our responses imply that I think may have flown a bit under the radar.
The factor that warps the system is the thread. Threading your most valuable goods means that they will not exit the economy often, which implies that they will be over-supplied vs. the demand.
We mentioned earlier, but it may have been overlooked, that we intend to introduce a wide range of consumables for all sorts of effects and bonuses. You will be expected to apply a number of these consumables during a combat encounter. So the consumption rate of these things is going to be ferocious.
This will create a very liquid market for these consumables, which will be crafted from low quality resources and be craftable by inexperienced characters. Demand will be very high which means that making the stuff will be a path to return a reasonable profit.
However, since you are very likely to thread your arms & armor(*), demand for those types of items will be greatly reduced. As you become able to make more and more powerful items the market for what you make will get smaller and smaller and eventually it will become easily saturated. What is likely to happen is that at the high end, you will be able to find the best arms & armor, across a wide variety of keyword configurations, available for sale in any moderately well supplied market, but the inventory will turn over very slowly. A small number of high end crafters will saturate this market very quickly, and then they'll cease crafting more stuff, nor will new high end crafters see much point in crafting more inventory for a market with a low demand. There will be some demand as characters gain enough character ability to use the high end stuff, and as some is lost to mischief and misadventure, but the consumption rate will be a fraction of that of other types of gear due to threading.
Everything not arms and armor will not have this problem, because you won't want to thread it (while...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Threading means that the 2nd and even the 3rd best items for each class for each slot are still in high demand, because getting the best in slot means you will have to thread it and then you will loose your other items over the course of several deaths because you can only thread one or two top items.
If you manage to have your corpse defended most of the time this will significantly raise the time it takes until you need to replenish your items, if you run alone and each death means you get looted you will have a constant need of new items.
But no, threading will not cause a separate economy, it will simply cause people to wear a selected few top items without worry instead of noone using the best items for fear of loss. This in turn makes it possible that the best items are very rare/very expensive, which otherwise would not be practical.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I ment that it will not cause a separate economy in the sense that the OP thought.
Ryan's exact statement is that it will be an entirely separate kind of economy, one of which will specifically will by design hit the pitfalls of normal MMO's of oversupply, being worthless for everyone but the top, and even the top having little motivation to bother.
Economy 1. Items with low/medium manufacturing cost, but are most likely to be threaded. Consumables, regular wonderous items, things that are easy to mass produce, with a small to medium cost of manufacturing, items are lost regularly, and thus are always in demand, replacement is frequently necessary, even vets will be likely to buy low/medium quality items, because losing them is inevitable, and different situations don't benefit from burning out the best you can get.
Economy 2. Items with high manufacturing cost, (most likely weapons + armor). These will be big investments, people will expect to be keeping them for long amounts of time, they will buy expecting to keep for months, and thus will actually take the time to save up for the best they can get, or have a crafter custom make the exact version they desire. This is a market that people will rarely get below what the best they can get in, will actually take the time, focus on earning money to get the best they can, and very rarely will people "settle for" an item that isn't exactly what they want. Crafters will be discouraged from starting in this market, until their skills are higher than any accessable competition, and will not be easy to unload. Crafters will most likely either need to custom order, or be prepared to sit on them for weeks waiting for someone to pick them up. Profit margins will also be slim, as they are expected to saturate the market.
Maybe the termonology is weird by saying "seperate" economy, but the concept is there, there will be 2 categories of items, that play by 2 very different sets of rules.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I assume that weapons and armor will always be threaded because that's the stuff you'll need if you want to do a corpse run and try to recover the rest of your inventory. Realistically most people will not want to enter the world without defense or offense. So realistically most people will thread their arms & armor.
It's not really an issue of supply; there will be plenty of supply. Crafters gonna craft - that's what they get joy from. The demand will be the problem; it will be low. When demand is low and supply is high, prices are low, so crafting arms & armor won't be very lucrative.
I think there's very little problem with cheap swords and armor as long as the crafters have plenty of alternatives.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16
|
However, since you are very likely to thread your arms & armor(*), demand for those types of items will be greatly reduced. As you become able to make more and more powerful items the market for what you make will get smaller and smaller and eventually it will become easily saturated. What is likely to happen is that at the high end, you will be able to find the best arms & armor, across a wide variety of keyword configurations, available for sale in any moderately well supplied market, but the inventory will turn over very slowly.
I think there's very little problem with cheap swords and armor as long as the crafters have plenty of alternatives.
Note that Ryan's excellent analysis here describes the long run equilibrium state of the market. Major profits will accrue to crafters who are well positioned to take advantage of disruptions to that equilibrium.
For example at some point, perhaps months into the game, Tier 2 weapons will become available. A certain number of crafters will have the pre-requisites to be first movers into this new market, and warriors looking for an edge will pay exorbitant prices due to limited supply. Then the market in T2 weapons will mature into the equilibrium state above. The crafters will do other things for a while, just making enough to supply the slowly clearing market and making modest returns. Until T3 is released.
At each disruption event (and there may be others than the release of a new tier, such as wars or resource changes) those able to be first movers will make windfall profits. The requirements to generate these profits will depend on being maximally skilled in all the pre-requisite abilities, and also having strong supply networks for the required components at the right quality. The new tier will probably require newly released raw materials, so good links with PVE explorers will be a must.
So while Ryan's analysis is sound, there will still be the opportunity for max-rank weapon and armor crafters to make astounding profits. Just not all the time.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
The wars will be informed by the huge warehouses full of equipment sitting on the market at five times the normal markup. Know that when you go to war, you have to pay the price demanded by the guys who invested heavily in stockpiling equipment to profiteer with.
One pint of resistance oil can be sourced cheaply from a small-time alchemist. 30 cubic yards of it will have to go through a different supplier, and if you need that much you HAVE to have it at any price.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I've asked before and not seen a response; will threads be recoverable? Will you be able to un-thread an item and apply the recovered threads to something else? If they aren't recoverable, that will slow the economy a great deal, as there would be little reason to make minor upgrades when doing so would mean you lose an irreplaceable resource. If people stockpile threads for some 'perfect' equipment set then the feature may as well not exist. The griefers would be happy, but devs would ultimately need to make the 'perfect' set for a role a reality, lest the non-griefers end up feeling cheated that they saved up threads for nothing. 'Cheated' players tend to become subversive, looking for ways to exploit the rules and grief others, and the culture of the game degenerates.
To respond to a point somebody brought up,
Threaded Items 'not leaving the economy often' (and thus not requiring new replacement production)
isn't in contrast to items that ARE looted (which as somebody else pointed out, is still within the economy),
it would be in contrast to the amount of gear you were carrying that ISN'T looted at all,
and thus 'disappears' from the economy when you're killed. (assuming you don't get back to your corpse soon enough).
I do think that instead of totally relying on 'incomplete-looting' to destroy/remove 'Durable' goods from the game economy, that global 'Item Lifespans' be applied, equally for Threaded Items as non-Threaded. That removes alot of the economic discrepancy between those classes of items, while retaining the player convenience of item threading. Perhaps the item durations can be extended by 'repairs', but if those have a cost, it is economically equivalent... And those repairs are another job/service for Weapon/Armor Crafters to apply their skills to, so it's keeping them more consistently employed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What if there was 'Insurance' instead of the Threading system?
If by insurance you mean the item is indeed destroyed or taken, and you are compensated in money, it would mean all items would be in mass production, and sold regularly more or less universally. There would not often exist times where major items are in a glut and slow selling unless no one ever uses them, and on high risk jobs, people will rarely take their best equipment, unless they believe it is neccessary for a chance of success, and the payoff is huge.
Whether that is good or bad of course, depends on the person
What would be the implications of allowing full looting?,
i.e. non-consumables without Threads DON'T leave the economy like consumables?
I would say a very extreme form of the opposite, An item decay system would absolutely become an extreme necessity, because if things don't break, and at bare minimum 25% of character activity is towards part of the item creation chain... markets would overload fast, barring the game having an insanely rapid growth rate (IE 40% per month or so) for the life of the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Insurance would simply add a coin faucet next to the item sink; whether that is desired or not is an economic question.
It also raises the possibility for characters to 'sell' any item to the server, without having to go through the time and effort of finding a player market for items they want to liquidate.
@Keovar - yes, the plan is that threads are a persistent feature of your character and you can bind them to whatever you wish; if you want to change those bindings you can.
Thank you, that's good to know.