Architect Archive
Thread: A Miners Message: Sent To Thunderheart
ThothTheWise wrote:
Their Mentioned (i would say stated, but they havent "officially posted anythiong on the topic...its all second hand info) Reasons to "nerf" lot trades are;
- The point of view that massive Harvestor fields "possess" large tracts of land.
- Data base concerns...more resources added and stored on a server, as well as lot traded factories and housing used for storage
- The ability to mine large volumes of the "best" resources and storing them for months at a time and the ability by wich to produce huge volumes of iteams by crafters.
- the general lowering of prices by this increased volume of both resources and the products made from them.
If these turn out to be SOE's reasonings for implementing a change, I'd like to address them point-by-point.
1. This is difficult to actually validate. Yes, they do take up land. So do player cities. In fact, I've had more trouble running into cities while looking for a good resource spot than I ever have with static harvesters (and there are a decent amount on Lowca). This arguement is truly flimsy at best, and I'd like to see some raw data backing it up if the Dev's ever list it as a serious issue.
2. I simply don't buy this arguement. If they were concerned about database and storage, they wouldn't be constantly adding limited-use schematics and looted parts that are required for these schematics, which just adds additional hassle to professions like Weaponsmith that already have a ton of resources that they have to find storage for.
3. This is a downright fallacy. Yes, static harvesters are great for pulling up large quantities of resources. But the "best"? This is simply untrue. It is simply uneconomical to maintain harvesters for months on end, hoping that something good will spawn with any decent concentration under them.
4. Is this such a bad thing? Armorsmiths are already making a killing on selling composite armor. Why do anything to drive the prices up even higher? Also, if resource prices go up (which they would), it would exclude new crafters from having access to decent resources, limiting them to making sub-par goods or simply not making any goods at all for months on end until they are able to mine current resources which are comparable to the best spawns, or until they can afford those best spawns themselves. It would also limit the purchasing power of exisiting crafters who may not be able to afford a price hike from their input suppliers.
--Iaan K'Vork
TheOxygen wrote:
3. This is a downright fallacy. Yes, static harvesters are great for pulling up large quantities of resources. But the "best"? This is simply untrue. It is simply uneconomical to maintain harvesters for months on end, hoping that something good will spawn with any decent concentration under them.
For static harvesters I can personally attest to this. I've been static mining behind my house on Kettemoor most of the time for the past 8-9 months. In that whole time I've gotten 1 good spawn of quality mineral at a decent density. One day high HR,SR,UT and OQ steel at 93% popped up right under my harvs.. the force was with me that day. 
But for the rest of the 8-9 months it was 30-50% LG ore densities or 50-70% grind metal at best and I know I went at least 1 cycle with nothing at all to mine above 20-30% range.
I've also been doing static mining on my alt account, Oprolan on Sunrunner. I've got haresters at two locations a ways apart to hedge my bets on densities. I think I've had4-6 good materials pop up but the densities haven't been very high, pretty much in the 40% range on average. And I've also been mining more resources with harvesters setup for flora, chem, mineral, gas and water just so I can have a variety of things available at my shop. I've pulled up about 500k-1M a week in total over 10-12 week period and probably no more than 1/10 of it has been good quality.
I think thata miner will produce a LOT more of the high quality stuff if they are using dynamic lots that they rent from an active player than if they just static mine through rental or lot swaps.
TheOxygen wrote:
ThothTheWise wrote:
Their Mentioned (i would say stated, but they havent "officially posted anythiong on the topic...its all second hand info) Reasons to "nerf" lot trades are;
- The point of view that massive Harvestor fields "possess" large tracts of land.
- Data base concerns...more resources added and stored on a server, as well as lot traded factories and housing used for storage
- The ability to mine large volumes of the "best" resources and storing them for months at a time and the ability by wich to produce huge volumes of iteams by crafters.
- the general lowering of prices by this increased volume of both resources and the products made from them.
If these turn out to be SOE's reasonings for implementing a change, I'd like to address them point-by-point.
1. This is difficult to actually validate. Yes, they do take up land. So do player cities. In fact, I've had more trouble running into cities while looking for a good resource spot than I ever have with static harvesters (and there are a decent amount on Lowca). This arguement is truly flimsy at best, and I'd like to see some raw data backing it up if the Dev's ever list it as a serious issue.
The idea is that this land is not available from live active players.. because it is blocked by ghost players.. ( they even put in place means to make cross server citienzen swap.. unattractive..) so that is the idea of this..
2. I simply don't buy this arguement. If they were concerned about database and storage, they wouldn't be constantly adding limited-use schematics and looted parts that are required for these schematics, which just adds additional hassle to professions like Weaponsmith that already have a ton of resources that they have to find storage for.
This is legit.. and as for the limited use schematics.. that an indication of the REAL issue.. the intention was that there would be more variety in what is crafting.. they never wanted one guy to be able to make 1000 identical of items.. let alone being able to make 10 schematics of the same 1000 items.. it was hoped that there would be ALOT more variety in the market..
3. This is a downright fallacy. Yes, static harvesters are great for pulling up large quantities of resources. But the "best"? This is simply untrue. It is simply uneconomical to maintain harvesters for months on end, hoping that something good will spawn with any decent concentration under them.
Even Grind resources in mass supply can create an imbalance.. ( heck without all the walls we are able to make we wouldnt be able to flood the market with our harvesters.... )
4. Is this such a bad thing? Armorsmiths are already making a killing on selling composite armor. Why do anything to drive the prices up even higher? Also, if resource prices go up (which they would), it would exclude new crafters from having access to decent resources, limiting them to making sub-par goods or simply not making any goods at all for months on end until they are able to mine current resources which are comparable to the best spawns, or until they can afford those best spawns themselves. It would also limit the purchasing power of exisiting crafters who may not be able to afford a price hike from their input suppliers.
Yesfalling pricesis a bad thing.. It is too easy to get the best of the best.. which is making the market for lesser quality items.. ( things that people who dont have the best resources and arent master make) .. even more miniscule..
--Iaan K'Vork
Back when hologrinding existing players didn't have nearly the same levels of affluence or desires. Back then hand-sampling was actually taken seriously. Holo-grinding will dent demand for resources slightly which if anything will simply mean less resource sinks (reduced demand means a decrease in prices, which means a devaluation of crafted goods).
I think that a LOT of things have changed since the advent of holo-grinding. To blame all current imbalances on holo-grinding will be to make a big mistake.
As per the rest of your post, the goal as I discuss it is to make increased accounts and increased play less efficient. Some nerfs do that, some don't, and it's important to look at each in this light.
Well D,
All I can say is the whole idea smacks of blaming the payers over and over and over again for their own mistakes and that's what ultimately really pisses me off.
Even the most stupid person in the world could tell you what the ramifications of not one but TWO Xmas holo's would be.
And yes, I've been through the arguments, and yes, I know a good portion of what was going on in Sony with internal issues, and so on, and so on...
But destroying the tight economies that had formed and causing MASSIVE inflation solved absolutely NOTHING. The numbers still went down and a majority of the most dedicated crafters quit the game on ALL SERVERS over the grind.
When you add the fact that we still have CRIPPLING vendor and factory bugs TO THIS DAY that wipe out MULTIPLE MONTHS of work and absolutely no official response on these, much less anything else from the supposed customer service maybe they could for one second understand the anger in THIS customer's mind every single time I see their official spokesman make statements that do not either address issues on hand or appear as nothing more than continual dodges.
Much less the fact that I still have NO idea how crafting works, I still have no idea how to make a damn BE pet that passes their stupid excuse for a control system (spend THREE weeks getting parts together to make a pet only to find it is invalid when you try to pull it out), they publish FALSE and INCORRECT information on SEAs and runaway like juveniles from the issue when called on it.
Trust is severely lacking for anything they say to be 1) accurate, or 2) true.
Fivo Asia
Message Edited by Cafa on 06-15-2004 04:29 PM
StGabriel wrote:
Gabe it worked WELL before the grind, then demand exceeded supply. Guess what!?!
Back when hologrinding existing players didn't have nearly the same levels of affluence or desires. Back then hand-sampling was actually taken seriously. Holo-grinding will dent demand for resources slightly which if anything will simply mean less resource sinks (reduced demand means a decrease in prices, which means a devaluation of crafted goods).
I think that a LOT of things have changed since the advent of holo-grinding. To blame all current imbalances on holo-grinding will be to make a big mistake.
As per the rest of your post, the goal as I discuss it is to make increased accounts and increased play less efficient. Some nerfs do that, some don't, and it's important to look at each in this light.
That is a goal that just might be contrary to the devs' goal. I would imagine the devs, while maybe not wanting to *reward* multiple account holders, certainly don't want to be seen as *nerfing* them. Why?
Well, say they have to do X amount of work to keep a person interested in the game, keep them paying their $15 a month, right?
If that X amount of work brings in one account, great.
But in my case, that same X amount of work brings in 4 * X revenue. I have four accounts.
And in a gentlemen's case above, the same X amount of work brings in 7 * X revenue.
Now I'm in business IRL (aren't we all?). I know I'd sure as hell like to make 4x and 7x on my wages for the same amount of work, if given the chance. And if I find someone who's willing to pay that, I'm sure as hell not gonna piss them off.
Of course, this is a somewhat different situation. The devs here need to weigh the mass of people vs. the few (comparitively) with massively multiple accounts and do what's best for the most revenue (yep, it's a business). Still, they're going to give priority to the solution that will fix the problem while alienating the least number of accounts.
I would suggest that if we consider those goals while discussing alternatives to fix the x-server lot trade problem, we might find ourselves coming up with a solution that the devs will actually implement.
Ya that was a good one. I think they had like 6 pages of flames within a day or two after posting that total stinker of a friday feature.
Cafa wrote:
...they publish FALSE and INCORRECT information on SEAs and runaway like juveniles from the issue when called on it....
I've been considering this all along. Actually the decreased efficiency really doesn't alienate multiple accounts. If anything it might drive players to have even more accounts. People will pay a lot for a small advantage. That has always been true in MMORPG's. Look at players paying hundreds of dollars for FBSS's on EQ (that increased your damage output by only 25%). If we put the most efficient solutions in the hands of a single character and attempt to make more massive solutions increasingly less efficient, if anything by making resources more difficult to acquire there will be more demand for accounts.
Look at things like this, in which case are you more likely to buy an additional account:
1) lot trading makes massive resource production on one account easy, and additional accounts will only increase your resource production slightly
2) lot trading is difficult or non-existent and to obtain new resources you have to hire real live players to do the work for you; additional accounts however, with an extra time sink, allow you to directly harvest more
I think it's clear that #2 will lead to greater demand for additional accounts, and that's really what is being talked about.
The main issue to combat is when one account is as efficient as 20 other ones (i.e. through lot swapping). Multiple accounts will, at best, be equivalent to single accounts multiplied which is all I'm really talking about here. That is, they won't be particularly more efficient per account, but they won't be less either. If lot swapping gets reduced this would hopefully lead to a more balanced economy overall. However, for those who absolutely need to get the most, multiple accounts will have an increased and not decreased demand.
While making lot swapping difficult or impossible might be bad PR for SOE, if it succeeds in balancing the economy then overall it's a big win for them. More casual crafters benefit from a more balanced economy. More hardcore crafters have more reasons (and not less) to buy multiple accounts as it is now much more difficult to otherwise generate large stockpiles. Hopefully the increase in accounts does not replace the prior imbalances.
Message Edited by StGabriel on 06-16-2004 02:14 AM
So you can't just look at things in terms of multiple accounts that might be lost. If the entire game system flops there arne't any accounts.
StGabe.
ThothTheWise wrote:Allow me to do a very POOR attempt to show ,what I feel to be a perfect running SWG Economy.
[...]
People Craft UNDER what the demand is for "Top Quality" products, thus insuring that those just below the best have a market.
God that will be a pain in the ass. Think about it from the customer's perspective: If this comes to pass, you're going to need to visit 10 empty vendors before you come across the one that has what you want in stock.
This leads to the major pain from the crafter's point of view: If it's such a pain to find a stocked vendor, then you're going to be in far more tell-hell with people asking if you have [item] in stock on your vendor before driving out to it. Or you'll be flooded with spam from people asking you for a [item], thus removing the entire point of vendors.
Heck, I got to spend a few hours just trying to find a vendor with the BE clothing I wanted for one of my alts. In the "perfect" system you describe, I'd have to spend days going to vendors trying to find what I want.
Your "perfect" system ignores the fact that new players create new demands. Current demand does not need to be limited to create future demand, the future players will create that demand. As it is, your system will make prices skyrocket, guarenteeing that no young player could possibly get the "best" quality stuff ever.
As it is, the profit margin on anything in the game, including "not-quite-the-best" items is very large. For example, I make a fair chunk of money selling CDEFs and other newbie weapons on the Bazaar for 20-40cpu because I got tired of the resource treadmill when making the best. We only need to worry about artificially creating demand when profits become very low on non-best items.