Coin Concern


Pathfinder Online

51 to 100 of 135 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Bringslite wrote:

@ BrotherZael

I would not get too invested in this until you see a change in the "coin" mechanic. Until then it is intangible and non lootable. If people wanted to store their intangible gold in a bank with convenient branches (for some reason), the "bankers" could quite easily keep the balances stable in the branches without ever risking it.

The bank thing was my fault bringslite. When people were suggesting coin should be an actual object you had to carry I decided that while I support the idea people should have the ramifications pointed out.

Goblin Squad Member

Well alright. Fair enough. I did not read back far enough to see that you had a disclaimer. My fault there! :)

I would not mind if "coin" were an object, but I can understand Ryan's reasoning after reading it.

Apologies for the interruption, Sir. Please carry on!

Edit: @ Steelwing

Ok. I see that you were pointing out further complications, etc... We do love to complicate things around here. ;)

Goblin Squad Member

T7V Lord_Bane wrote:
Some members use T7V and others use TSV.

Some seem not to've located a reason to settle on one or the other :-).

Goblin Squad Member

Ravenlute wrote:


No way. Most people are very protective about their hard earned stuff. If things are breaking that folks did everything they could to protect it will just lead to an exodus of players. As far as I know, there isn't an insurance policy in PFO like in EVE. Why insist on taking EVERYTHING from a player? How is that fun at all? If you want to play that way, don't thread anything but don't dump that overly hardcore all-or-nothing bull on the rest of us. Get your filthy hands off my shiny.

Even with insurance in EVE it doesnt get you back all your really nice stuff, it ONLY covers the ship and only then part of the cost. heck the best ships have very low ship multipliers that means that in some ships you get back almost nothing compared to the cost.

Anyway thats besides the point. The issue is this. Crafting. GW wants crafting to be important. They want crafting to be a major part of the game.

UNLESS you can have your threaded armor and weapons be destroyed you have eliminated a major part of the economy. what happens in 5 years? In 5 years you wont see any T1 or T2 gear worn by players. Why? Because gear is never lost. the result is that players will have themepark style progression of the major gear components. You run into a place where T1 and T2 gear is no longer used because gear never needs to be replaced, so EVERYONE will put T3 weapon/armor and at the end of the day there will be no variation.

There will be no risk. Crafters will all be making trinkets and consumables instead of crafting gear.

The thing is that having gear you can lose is a good thing for the economy, it means that there is a constant demand, and also that players are at risk.

Hmmmmmmmm, Do i wear my T3 gear and gain an advantage OR do I wear my T2 gear which i can replace easier?

Its a choice the player has to make. What I would hate to see in this game is that everyone ends up with +20 Vorpal Speed Dancing weapons and +20 Heavy Fort armor because its never at risk.

Let threaded items be at risk, but have GW look at how often it will be lost. If you cannot lose items you end up with crafting and an economy like a themepark. Now master crafters will no longer craft gear, they just craft repair kits......

Goblin Squad Member

Jazzlvraz wrote:
T7V Lord_Bane wrote:
Some members use T7V and others use TSV.
Some seem not to've located a reason to settle on one or the other :-).

Indeed. I tend to use T7V, but it's a little more cumbersome to type and to say out loud. As with most things, we'll leave folks free to use whichever they prefer :)

Goblin Squad Member

leperkhaun wrote:
In 5 years you wont see any T1 or T2 gear worn by players. Why? Because gear is never lost.

Not really. Every time you die, your Threaded Gear loses durability. In addition, it's highly unlikely that any Character will ever be able to Thread all their Tier 3 Gear.

[Edit] That durability loss means the piece will eventually be destroyed unless it's repaired, and that repair process will almost certainly involve Crafters.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan quite knows what he is about so I am sure whichever system he uses will be effective and fun to use.

And I hope it will be mine I:

I also agree with Leperkhaun.

I appreciate that people don't want to lose something they worked extremely hard for. At the same time loss is a part of life. I'd say leave the threads in game but either severely limit them (where it is only ONE item late game that can be threaded) or make it do the percent reduction thing, where the more threads in an item the less chance it has to be lost (in this way you can have all your items slightly less likely to be destroyed or a few moderately unlikely or one pretty much impossible. I think this system has serious merit, and it protects the economy. esp. crafters, traders, merchants, and item distributors (caravansary types).

Goblin Squad Member

@Nihimon

I understand that there is a system in place, I just want to ensure it is a DRASTIC system. Also we don't want to force crafters to be "repair-kit manufacturers". I mean that is just wrong man. A crafter should be able to make swords of badassery+1000000000 and remain viable throughout the game doing such.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nihimon wrote:


Not really. Every time you die, your Threaded Gear loses durability. In addition, it's highly unlikely that any Character will ever be able to Thread all their Tier 3 Gear.

[Edit] That durability loss means the piece will eventually be destroyed unless it's repaired, and that repair process will almost certainly involve Crafters.

Thats the thing, the gear never gets lost.

Sure you have to repair it, but that just requires a repair kit. Now crafters have gone from making weapons/armor to being repair kit mules.

Durability means nothing for items being lost and having to be replaced. repair kits are a method of making sure gatherers have a job and weapon/armor crafters dont become obsolete after the first year or two.

I would much rather crafters craft gear than repair kits.

Items MUST leave the game otherwise you get into a situation where new items do not get crafted because there is no reason to.

Goblin Squad Member

leperkhaun wrote:
Nihimon wrote:


Not really. Every time you die, your Threaded Gear loses durability. In addition, it's highly unlikely that any Character will ever be able to Thread all their Tier 3 Gear.

[Edit] That durability loss means the piece will eventually be destroyed unless it's repaired, and that repair process will almost certainly involve Crafters.

Thats the thing, the gear never gets lost.

Sure you have to repair it, but that just requires a repair kit. Now crafters have gone from making weapons/armor to being repair kit mules.

Durability means nothing for items being lost and having to be replaced. repair kits are a method of making sure gatherers have a job and weapon/armor crafters dont become obsolete after the first year or two.

I would much rather crafters craft gear than repair kits.

Items MUST leave the game otherwise you get into a situation where new items do not get crafted because there is no reason to.

Have they said that it will be repair kits? I had the impression that you would need a crafter with the ability to craft the actual item and his time to do it.

Goblin Squad Member

@Bringslite

There will be repair kits, as there will be kits for every job. Either way it is the same thing, either the crafter is making a kit or doing it himself she/it/he is just being a repair mule.

Goblin Squad Member

My previous understanding was that you would need a crafter with the skill to make the item, possibly some of the unique materials for the particular item, and a crafting facility. How could you make "ready" kits for that?

Has this really changed? I am too lazy to navigate the new blog page. :)

CEO, Goblinworks

7 people marked this as a favorite.

The Thread system is a hard compromise. In a perfect world we would not need it. But the overwhelming resistance to the effects of looting in PvP require us to put a bandage on the problem or simply lose the ability to communicate about the game to a wide swathe of people we want to engage. The in-game downsides are judged worth the out-of-game upsides.

Goblin Squad Member

See, Ryan quite knows what he is about xD

Goblin Squad Member

Brainstorming challenge on threading that would ease the "in-game downsides"?

For eg crafting Threading depending on item and keyword to make it "thread-ready" and/or renewal per random phases of the moon according to some sort of decay on efficacy?

I can't get past those ideas and what sort of cascade (disaster!) they'd lead to.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Like anything, the balance between threaded gear vs crafting market will probably evolve through crowdforging.

I'm assuming that threading items is a good compromise to have at first, to attract people from other MMOs. Once the population reached critical mass and players get used to the idea of:
1- Not having the best-in-slot gear and
2- Lose part of their stuff on a frequent basis

Then I think the threading mechanism could be slowly throttled down, to increase market opportunities (if need be).

Goblin Squad Member

CaptnB that is a pretty darn good setup

Goblin Squad Member

Why not have something simple like having a % of your wealth carried as (material) coinage, and the rest is virtual.

It could be graduated where the more wealthy one is, the smaller the percentage, so that they do not become over encumbered by the coin they are carrying.

Or perhaps the system could have material coinage, until it is converted into virtual coin in a settlement of POI.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

I don't worry about the weight and logistics of coinage in tabletop; I don't want to worry about it in PFO.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:

Why not have something simple like having a % of your wealth carried as (material) coinage, and the rest is virtual.

It could be graduated where the more wealthy one is, the smaller the percentage, so that they do not become over encumbered by the coin they are carrying.

Or perhaps the system could have material coinage, until it is converted into virtual coin in a settlement of POI.

All that does is promote the use of a coin mule. No merchant actually ever needs to possess any coin except for when in town and he needs to pay auction house fees etc

Goblin Squad Member

Drakhan Valane wrote:
I don't worry about the weight and logistics of coinage in tabletop; I don't want to worry about it in PFO.

I respect your right to have this preference, and I would hope you respect my right to have the opposing preference. I like forcing my players to choose between their family heirloom sword (only +1 masterwork...as far as they know) and some heavy questionable item that appears to be worth many better swords (point stands for heavy bags of coin). I think it falls into the consequences for decisions category.

Therefore, I am left with the impression that our opinions cancel each other out and I should support whichever seems to provide the most mechanics benefits to the functionality of the system as a whole.

CEO, Goblinworks

4 people marked this as a favorite.

@Forencith - but your desire won't actually result in the thing you wish to see happening actually happening. People will not move around the game world with risky liquid assets. It's been shown time and time and time again that the players will just innovate around that limitation, resulting in an opaque system that makes it harder for new players to understand how to play the game "correctly".

Goblinworks Executive Founder

BrotherZael wrote:

If you had a single customer or so with even money, yes. But say you have 100 people (1/3rd beginning settlement pop) using your bank in X. if each person has 1/4 million gold deposited and then goes to another settlement (Y) and withdraws there... how does that settlement maintain its vaults if they only have 75 people depositing there normally?

No for the most part you are not going to need to move money around, 100 people aren't just going to up and move to another settlement and then withdraw all their money at the same time as that settlement's residents or anything... usually. But it can happen (creating a "run-on-the-bank") which would require gold transfer somehow (or else stuff happens). In addition normal population movement/traveling will over time cause disparity between branches' vaults that you will need to fix by moving your money around (problems being if money starts piling up in one place and word gets out then bandits might raid it hard and if you start piling it up in one settlement the charge rate in the other won't be able to keep up with the wealth drain, if that makes sense, among other issues)

Don't worry Forencith, I'm not assuming T7V is or anything, this is purely hypothetical, of course. By the way does it irk you guys that I use "T7V" and not "TSV"?

Assume that the the people in settlement Y who are receiving the coin also deposit it with a bank, and that banks have at least some cooperative transfer agreements.

The end result is a complicated obscure system that also allow many individual players to embezzle large amounts of coin, and it strongly encourages the bankers sharing account credentials, leading to a potential major customer service headache if one player tries to steal all the money; many innocent players who only used a system that was all but required will feel like they have been unfairly stolen from, and they will look to GW for redress, but the players who did the stealing will believe that they did so fairly and that their victims understood the risks.

Goblin Squad Member

I think that Ryan is spot on. If coin were "material", I will do the same thing that I do in any other game where it is so. I will set up a convoluted system where there is some of my gold available in the places that I need to go. I would be okay with either system, but if given a choice, I would rather not have to mess with it.

The difference here is that there are 1000s of independent characters out there that would love to catch me with a good deal of gold on my person. In a TT situation a DM can run things like that, if he wants, but his players would eventually hurt him if it were a constant problem as real as those 1000s in an MMO. :)

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Dancey wrote:
@Forencith - but your desire won't actually result in the thing you wish to see happening actually happening. People will not move around the game world with risky liquid assets. It's been shown time and time and time again that the players will just innovate around that limitation, resulting in an opaque system that makes it harder for new players to understand how to play the game "correctly".

No, no...I agree. I was referring in the TT games I play, as I think was Drakhan Valane. That is why I suggested we both set our TT preferences aside and let what will work best for PFO the MMO work best for PFO the MMO.

I have highlighted several of the workarounds tangible coin would enable and agree that at this time, the system you originally proposed seems most viable.

As it relates to SAD however, I have an issue with carrying all my coin on my if someone will always be able to take it from me. It will just make the gradual price of SADs increase as the average character gains more wealth, eventually making it more difficult for new players to break into the game. SADs, if they utilized the exchange of intangible coin, would push people to use some of the same tactics to avoid tangible coin from being taken with their intangible coin, such as the player run bank.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Forencith wrote:
Ryan Dancey wrote:
@Forencith - but your desire won't actually result in the thing you wish to see happening actually happening. People will not move around the game world with risky liquid assets. It's been shown time and time and time again that the players will just innovate around that limitation, resulting in an opaque system that makes it harder for new players to understand how to play the game "correctly".

No, no...I agree. I was referring in the TT games I play, as I think was Drakhan Valane. That is why I suggested we both set our TT preferences aside and let what will work best for PFO the MMO work best for PFO the MMO.

I have highlighted several of the workarounds tangible coin would enable and agree that at this time, the system you originally proposed seems most viable.

As it relates to SAD however, I have an issue with carrying all my coin on my if someone will always be able to take it from me. It will just make the gradual price of SADs increase as the average character gains more wealth, eventually making it more difficult for new players to break into the game. SADs, if they utilized the exchange of intangible coin, would push people to use some of the same tactics to avoid tangible coin from being taken with their intangible coin, such as the player run bank.

I see that too. People will just divest themselves of even their intangible balance if coin is a part of SAD. That does not preclude coin from being a "side deal" during a SAD.

Goblin Squad Member

EDIT: Opps, wrong thread...moved to SAD debate.

Goblin Squad Member

The only problem that I can see with the side deal is the length of the discussion:

"But Noble Highwayman! Surely you want to fleece me again someday. This price will make my 3 husbands and 17 children homeless... Certainly we can agree that 1/2 of that is worth these pitiful chunks of iron?"

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:

Assume that the the people in settlement Y who are receiving the coin also deposit it with a bank, and that banks have at least some cooperative transfer agreements.

The end result is a complicated obscure system that also allow many individual players to embezzle large amounts of coin, and it strongly encourages the bankers sharing account credentials, leading to a potential major customer service headache if one player tries to steal all the money; many innocent players who only used a system that was all but required will feel like they have been unfairly stolen from, and they will look to GW for redress, but the players who did the stealing will believe that they did so fairly and that their...

again regional banks. I was assuming that you cannot transfer money bank to bank, but rather had to take the money out and move it that way. It is not a universal system, thus regional. Either way GW is going to be closely watching, and if the money does get embezzled people won't use that bank, and will start feuds with that company, etc.

A simple counter is to have GW state embezzlement & fraud is a form of griefing. Make it clear from the beginning it is not tolerated and then enforce it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BrotherZael wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:

Assume that the the people in settlement Y who are receiving the coin also deposit it with a bank, and that banks have at least some cooperative transfer agreements.

The end result is a complicated obscure system that also allow many individual players to embezzle large amounts of coin, and it strongly encourages the bankers sharing account credentials, leading to a potential major customer service headache if one player tries to steal all the money; many innocent players who only used a system that was all but required will feel like they have been unfairly stolen from, and they will look to GW for redress, but the players who did the stealing will believe that they did so fairly and that their...

again regional banks. I was assuming that you cannot transfer money bank to bank, but rather had to take the money out and move it that way. It is not a universal system, thus regional. Either way GW is going to be closely watching, and if the money does get embezzled people won't use that bank, and will start feuds with that company, etc.

A simple counter is to have GW state embezzlement & fraud is a form of griefing. Make it clear from the beginning it is not tolerated and then enforce it.

As I stated before though if the embezzler has any brains it is perfectly easy to make off with huge amounts over a period of a time in a way which would be very difficult for GW to pin down.

Example

A is running the bank of scam over a period of 12 months

There are an average of 4 deposits a day and 8 withdrawals

The average deposit is 10000 coin the average withdrawal is 4000 coin

Each deposit he skims off 10% of the value and sends it to an one of 3 alts in rotation. This continues until the whole scheme comes crashing down due to lack of funds.

During this time he has transferred money to players (withdrawals) a total of 365 (12 months) * (4 ( The number of deposits) + 4(number of skimmed amounts)) = 2920 total transactions.

In this time he has embezzled (1000 (10%) * 4(number of deposits) * 365) = 1460000 coins.

So goblin works is now faced with almost 3000 transactions involving repeat actors of which 2000 are perfectly genuine covering a total of 14.6 million coins over the space of a year and you think they are going to find it easy to track down which of these were the scam accounts that the coin was transferred to .

I suspect they would probably end up throwing their hands up in despair and just ban the banker character especially when I deliberately kept the number of transactions low to hammer home the scale of the problem. Deposits and withdrawals would quite probably be in the tens per day rather than single digits.

Goblin Squad Member

I still dont get the new player wont understand coins If he has to carry them.New player comes in gets killed and loses the coins he has on him. The ones in the bank are still there. What part are they going to not undetstand ?

Seems to me they will be more confused why 25percent of his stuff is destryed. 75percent was looted except for some items that he had on. Yet all of his coins were safe. Carrying coinsis too much for a new player but all of that stuff should be crystal clear?

Goblin Squad Member

Very good point, and very well pointed out.

As to answer, I can only reiterate this is something that we as players should be proactive about. I'm not deep into the banking, and for me I think the NPC bank system is fine. It was just brought up how a PC bank would work, and that is how. It could be that the PC bank is done by the GW people themselves with their in-game characters (which is ridiculous to me, as they already have a ton of work), or certain people that GW vetted? I don't know. I just proposed a viable system, and one of the only ones I heard (you know it is viable when people are thinking of ways to abuse it in-game).

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BrotherZael wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:

Assume that the the people in settlement Y who are receiving the coin also deposit it with a bank, and that banks have at least some cooperative transfer agreements.

The end result is a complicated obscure system that also allow many individual players to embezzle large amounts of coin, and it strongly encourages the bankers sharing account credentials, leading to a potential major customer service headache if one player tries to steal all the money; many innocent players who only used a system that was all but required will feel like they have been unfairly stolen from, and they will look to GW for redress, but the players who did the stealing will believe that they did so fairly and that their...

again regional banks. I was assuming that you cannot transfer money bank to bank, but rather had to take the money out and move it that way. It is not a universal system, thus regional. Either way GW is going to be closely watching, and if the money does get embezzled people won't use that bank, and will start feuds with that company, etc.

A simple counter is to have GW state embezzlement & fraud is a form of griefing. Make it clear from the beginning it is not tolerated and then enforce it.

The only way to distinguish embezzlement and fraud from normal business is to have the books of the bank available for inspection. Presumably this bank will also get used for escrow and transfer services, if both players have accounts with it, and those services exist only inside the bank- there's no way for GW to tell the difference between a character withdrawing a large transfer that he earned and one of the bank agents giving a lot of coin to a friend.

Things get even more complicated when one bank customer A tells the bank that someone impersonated him and authorized a large transfer that has since been withdrawn, but the customer B that received the money claims that it was payment from a fourth party C for services rendered. The server logs might show that the bank agent withdrew the bank's coin and transferred it to character B, but that information is consistent with A, B, or C being the fraudulent party, and any of them could do so either by colluding with the bank or by finding a security hole in the bank's system for authorizing transfers.

That's EXACTLY the kind of headache that I wouldn't want my Customer Service staff touching with a proverbial 11-foot pole, if I had one. Especially when the entire player-banking system is only interesting or meaningful if there's room for the bank to have problems similar to that. If it's prohibited from having bad practices that result in blame arguments getting passed around, it would best be rolled into a game system that works by some combination of magic and fiat.

Goblin Squad Member

@DeciusBrutus

my most recent post in reply to steelwing stated my answer to that xD

Goblinworks Executive Founder

4 people marked this as a favorite.
BrotherZael wrote:

@DeciusBrutus

my most recent post in reply to steelwing stated my answer to that xD

It often takes me more than 8 minutes to write a post, particularly when I fail to condense a lot of meaning into a short phrase.

Not that I'm fast and writing short posts that include a lot of content, but I take a lot of time trying before I give up and cast Wall of Text.

Goblin Squad Member

haha I know that feeling


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BrotherZael wrote:

@DeciusBrutus

my most recent post in reply to steelwing stated my answer to that xD

If a suggested mechanic then needs a further mechanic implemented to support it then it should probably go back to the drawing board.

In any case I do not think player run banks are an issue people just have to be aware of the potential issues and act sensibly. For example if I was using one it would have to have a good reputation (in the meta game sense) and even then I would deposit and withdraw the full amount in as short a time scale as possible (that is the time it takes me to get to the new town) I would never leave money sitting there for days or weeks. That way I can be fairly sure that the most I can ever lose is one deposit.

Also I would start with small deposits initially and work up as I came to trust them more. Players should not expect to be insulated from all danger and should very much expect to take responsibility for their own choices. Could I lose out on this bank? Yes of course I can but I would have done what I can to minimize that loss and assuming I use the bank for a period I would probably be in profit from the money that might have otherwise have been robbed.

Goblin Squad Member

There is nothing wrong with PC established banking as long as there is a need and GW permitting (caveat: meta arrangements). Whether coin is tangible or intangible. If there is a condition where it can be looted or SADed, there can be a need for those that don't want to use alt's/friends etc...

It has to be a player's responsibility to take the risk of putting their money into it, just as Steelwing points out. Unfortunately there is a significant percent of any player base that expects to be protected by the game and the designers.

Goblin Squad Member

Really thought I was done with this as I know its not going to happen …But the “it will confuse new players reason” is just getting under my skin.

It is odd to a new player to not lose his coins but loses everything else when he dies except for some items he can wear… should take about one death to figure out coins are valuable and need to be protected if they are carried on his person and looted.

As to how they choose to protect them that would be a meaningful choice… universal NPC bank, PC banks, item conversions. The knowledge it needs to be done will be something the new player understands, how they do it is a choice.. perhaps its something a new player relsihes and finds a better way to do it.

With magic coins that don’t disappear all a new player will learn is to turn these goods into coin ASAP .

How long till we read in chat, “found ore gathering node selling looting rights for 500 gp you transport .. send tell for info…”

Is this the correct version of the game new players are suppose to understand? Seems to me it breaks one of the prime goals of adventuring which was to go out in the world and bring stuff back.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tuffon wrote:
...“it will confuse new players reason”...

I thought what would confuse new players was the more-complicated system we'd all come up with to avoid carrying liquid assets from place to place. Given that there's no chance we'd not do that if coin were material, having coin be non-material appears, to me, the simplest solution, and easiest to explain and understand.

Goblin Squad Member

I've never played EVE so I'm having a bit of trouble following. Where did people get the idea there would be player run banks in Pathfinder Online. Did I miss something?

Also, is there a game that uses the "virtual coin " system that Ryan is talking about? I'm trying to have an example to compare with. Would it be similar to that of DAoC where your character has the money in its paper doll but never physically in the player's backpack? If so, why can't a player just drop a certain percentage of their gold when they die, and when the first person goes to loot him/her it is automatically deposited into their personal fund?


Nevy wrote:

I've never played EVE so I'm having a bit if trouble following. Where did people get the idea there would be player run banks in Pathfinder Online. Did I miss something?

Also, is there a game that uses the "virtual coin " system that Ryan is talking about? I'm trying to have an example to compare to. Would it be similar to that of DAoC where your character just has the money in its paper doll but is never physically in your backpack? If so, why can't a player just drop a certain percentage of their gold when they die, and when the first person goes to loot him/her it is automatically deposited into their personal fund?

Every mmo I have ever played has a virtual currency system whereby what you have coin wise is always in your wallet. This is the system as proposed by Dancey. You do not drop any of this coin under any circumstance when you die for the good reason that if you did all that would happen is everyone would create an alt who never leaves the npc area to hold all their coin and only transfer it to their main as it was needed for spending.

The bank thing was a ramification of the suggestion that coin should be a tangible object that needed to be carried from place to place. For example if you are in settlement A and have 9000 coin in the bank and 1000 coin carried and go to settlement B you only have access to the 1000 coin and if you want the rest you have to go back to settlement A to get it. This is where player run banks come in because they allow you to deposit in settlement A, travel safely without risking losing your gold to settlement b then withdraw the money there.

Goblin Squad Member

Yes understanding coin is not material is easy to understand, how that thought fits into the game is something I am having a hard time understanding.

Turning coin into items that could be damaged or taken or lost, seems to me like a good thing. Each time a standard unit that the player base chooses loses a decay point, that item just lost % of its value. This removes coin from the game, which is also a good thing..

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
Nevy wrote:

I've never played EVE so I'm having a bit if trouble following. Where did people get the idea there would be player run banks in Pathfinder Online. Did I miss something?

Also, is there a game that uses the "virtual coin " system that Ryan is talking about? I'm trying to have an example to compare to. Would it be similar to that of DAoC where your character just has the money in its paper doll but is never physically in your backpack? If so, why can't a player just drop a certain percentage of their gold when they die, and when the first person goes to loot him/her it is automatically deposited into their personal fund?

Every mmo I have ever played has a virtual currency system whereby what you have coin wise is always in your wallet. This is the system as proposed by Dancey. You do not drop any of this coin under any circumstance when you die for the good reason that if you did all that would happen is everyone would create an alt who never leaves the npc area to hold all their coin and only transfer it to their main as it was needed for spending.

The bank thing was a ramification of the suggestion that coin should be a tangible object that needed to be carried from place to place. For example if you are in settlement A and have 9000 coin in the bank and 1000 coin carried and go to settlement B you only have access to the 1000 coin and if you want the rest you have to go back to settlement A to get it. This is where player run banks come in because they allow you to deposit in settlement A, travel safely without risking losing your gold to settlement b then withdraw the money there.

What is the difference between players using an alt to keep their funds safe and players using a NPC bank to keep their funds in ?

Goblin Squad Member

Nevy wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
Nevy wrote:

I've never played EVE so I'm having a bit if trouble following. Where did people get the idea there would be player run banks in Pathfinder Online. Did I miss something?

Also, is there a game that uses the "virtual coin " system that Ryan is talking about? I'm trying to have an example to compare to. Would it be similar to that of DAoC where your character just has the money in its paper doll but is never physically in your backpack? If so, why can't a player just drop a certain percentage of their gold when they die, and when the first person goes to loot him/her it is automatically deposited into their personal fund?

Every mmo I have ever played has a virtual currency system whereby what you have coin wise is always in your wallet. This is the system as proposed by Dancey. You do not drop any of this coin under any circumstance when you die for the good reason that if you did all that would happen is everyone would create an alt who never leaves the npc area to hold all their coin and only transfer it to their main as it was needed for spending.

The bank thing was a ramification of the suggestion that coin should be a tangible object that needed to be carried from place to place. For example if you are in settlement A and have 9000 coin in the bank and 1000 coin carried and go to settlement B you only have access to the 1000 coin and if you want the rest you have to go back to settlement A to get it. This is where player run banks come in because they allow you to deposit in settlement A, travel safely without risking losing your gold to settlement b then withdraw the money there.

What is the difference between players using an alt to keep their funds safe and players using a NPC bank to keep their funds in ?

None, and that is all we were pointing out.

Goblin Squad Member

Forencith wrote:
Nevy wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
Nevy wrote:

I've never played EVE so I'm having a bit if trouble following. Where did people get the idea there would be player run banks in Pathfinder Online. Did I miss something?

Also, is there a game that uses the "virtual coin " system that Ryan is talking about? I'm trying to have an example to compare to. Would it be similar to that of DAoC where your character just has the money in its paper doll but is never physically in your backpack? If so, why can't a player just drop a certain percentage of their gold when they die, and when the first person goes to loot him/her it is automatically deposited into their personal fund?

Every mmo I have ever played has a virtual currency system whereby what you have coin wise is always in your wallet. This is the system as proposed by Dancey. You do not drop any of this coin under any circumstance when you die for the good reason that if you did all that would happen is everyone would create an alt who never leaves the npc area to hold all their coin and only transfer it to their main as it was needed for spending.

The bank thing was a ramification of the suggestion that coin should be a tangible object that needed to be carried from place to place. For example if you are in settlement A and have 9000 coin in the bank and 1000 coin carried and go to settlement B you only have access to the 1000 coin and if you want the rest you have to go back to settlement A to get it. This is where player run banks come in because they allow you to deposit in settlement A, travel safely without risking losing your gold to settlement b then withdraw the money there.

What is the difference between players using an alt to keep their funds safe and players using a NPC bank to keep their funds in ?
None, and that is all we were pointing out.

K...


Nevy wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
Nevy wrote:

I've never played EVE so I'm having a bit if trouble following. Where did people get the idea there would be player run banks in Pathfinder Online. Did I miss something?

Also, is there a game that uses the "virtual coin " system that Ryan is talking about? I'm trying to have an example to compare to. Would it be similar to that of DAoC where your character just has the money in its paper doll but is never physically in your backpack? If so, why can't a player just drop a certain percentage of their gold when they die, and when the first person goes to loot him/her it is automatically deposited into their personal fund?

Every mmo I have ever played has a virtual currency system whereby what you have coin wise is always in your wallet. This is the system as proposed by Dancey. You do not drop any of this coin under any circumstance when you die for the good reason that if you did all that would happen is everyone would create an alt who never leaves the npc area to hold all their coin and only transfer it to their main as it was needed for spending.

The bank thing was a ramification of the suggestion that coin should be a tangible object that needed to be carried from place to place. For example if you are in settlement A and have 9000 coin in the bank and 1000 coin carried and go to settlement B you only have access to the 1000 coin and if you want the rest you have to go back to settlement A to get it. This is where player run banks come in because they allow you to deposit in settlement A, travel safely without risking losing your gold to settlement b then withdraw the money there.

What is the difference between players using an alt to keep their funds safe and players using a NPC bank to keep their funds in ?

If coin were made into tangible lootable objects the you could leave your coins in an npc bank in a settlement but they would not be available in another settlement hence the Player run banks

If coins were not tangible but were always in your wallet but you dropped a percentage of your total coins when you die which was another suggestion then that is when people would use safe alts to hoard their coin so that if they die their wallet has little in it. The alts can freely transfer money back and forth.

They are two different suggestions and two different solutions covering them that is all.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Will back away from the cliff..again.. but still contend coins as a tangible objects are a good thing../em heads off to sulk.

And to clear up my views ...I never want a % of coin a person has in the bank to be lootable on death(very big no to alt banks).

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
The Thread system is a hard compromise. In a perfect world we would not need it. But the overwhelming resistance to the effects of looting in PvP require us to put a bandage on the problem or simply lose the ability to communicate about the game to a wide swathe of people we want to engage. The in-game downsides are judged worth the out-of-game upsides.

The overwhelming resistance is because people generally don't like to lose everything. In many MMO's you have certain goals that include becoming more powerful, gaining cool gear, building a guild base, etc.

Losing any of those is a huge blow to the time investment put in to get them. In PFO the only thing we'll retain for sure is the power. Settlements can come and go and items can be lost. The threaded idea works because it gives a few items that a player can work towards and hold on to while losing a lot. It gives them hope and a little stability and makes them want to log back in and play the next day.

When someone loses everything, why would they want to return just to scrape through it all and lose it all again? Most people don't enjoy that. That would be like working hard to buy a car IRL and then having someone steal it or crash into it and you not having any insurance. So you are expected to work for it all over again knowing that there's a good chance you'll just lose it again. It's not worth the trouble.

So thank you for having threaded items as they are. There's no need to make the unwilling pain of death even more drastic.

If everything can be destroyed then it's true that everyone will be wearing low tier gear. In fact there will never be a good reason to wear high tier stuff because you could be attacked any time you would be needing it. That will hurt crafting worse than threading because no one will ever buy it.


Tuffon wrote:

Will back away from the cliff..again.. but still contend coins as a tangible objects are a good thing../em heads off to sulk.

And to clear up my views ...I never want a % of coin a person has in the bank to be lootable on death(very big no to alt banks).

I think its a good idea too however I also feel that people should understand the "this will happen if you do this" bits in order to make informed decisions on whether its a good idea

51 to 100 of 135 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Coin Concern All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.