Artisan Archive
Thread: A re-post of an economy crippling bug. (Original post seems to have disappeared.
HalasterTheBlack
Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:49 am
#27
The reality, though, is that this doesn't matter that much one way or the other. Additional nerfs are under discussion in the Smuggler forum.
I find it interesting... nay, pathetic... how so many people are, in effect, saying "Nerf the hell out of them in order to make my experience better"...
/sigh
StGabriel
Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:55 am
#28
I find it interesting... nay, pathetic... how so many people are, in effect, saying "Nerf the hell out of them in order to make my experience better"...
Who is saying this?
I'm saying, "nerf the hell out of me in order to make the general game experience better".
*smirk*
StGabe.
Who is saying this?
I'm saying, "nerf the hell out of me in order to make the general game experience better".
*smirk*
StGabe.
Message Edited by StGabriel on 06-17-2004 10:56 AM
HalasterTheBlack
Thu Jun 17, 2004 9:18 am
#29
How is eliminating people's abilities to use harvesters the way they do now nerfing YOU?
And go read the smuggler forum. Look for posts started by red names. But the summary is, they're headed toward eliminating the use of sliced armor& weapons almostentirely (i.e. by anyone but smugglers) with their "improvements"...
joined42904
Thu Jun 17, 2004 10:52 am
#30
That sounds very reasonable to me. Most folks in any society are relatively law abiding and don't carry around contraband unless part of the criminal underclass. Everyone using sliced weapons and armor does seem to be something that should be made more rare. I'm happy to be nerfed in this fasion.
I run 2 accounts, Halaster. I know that you run 4. If certs come in, one of my toons won't be certed. That means I'm advocating a nerf to me. Furthermore, by advocating abolishing admin on harvs, I am also advocating making me spend twice as much time checking harvs as I do currently. Is that not a nerf of sorts to me?
When I want to nerf cross-lot trades, I want to nerf my own ability to participate in them as well. (I don't as I see it as an exploit...but you know...that's why I want it done away with.)
Do you not agree that I will be negatively impacted by the changes I advocate?
HalasterTheBlack
Thu Jun 17, 2004 11:45 am
#31
Yes, you will be affected.
To a lesser extent than everyone else will be affected.
That is my point.
It seems greedy and selfish.
joined42904
Thu Jun 17, 2004 1:55 pm
#32
Halaster,
I don't see the contradiction, but maybe I didn't explain myself well.
There are a number of proposed systems.
1. Limit total lots per account. I would be completely unaffected by this. So would most folks who don't cross lot trade. I don't know about you but I assume that you would be unaffected by this as well, Halaster unless you rent lots from folks who have crafters on other servers and you don't know you're doing that.
2. Eliminate admin on harvesters. If folks have to get very involved in the lots that they are renting, they may get interested enough to start mining themselves. (Think about it...make a lot more money than just a lot rental but you have to find the spot and buy your harvs. Harvs aren't all that expensive, though they seem expensive to a new player.) Totally mining by themselves wouldn't be all that much more work than what they will have to do to rent out their lots. So you would probably see fewer lots rented (well...maybe still some donated within guilds but not rented and the donator of lots would probably be a donatee of armor or some such from a guildmate that would have more value than what lot renters typically get these days). The more I think about it the more beautiful the eliminate admin proposal seems to me. Because that means this guy has to put in his own power and his own maintenence, too. It also has the beauty of making running 40 lots on 4 accounts take on a per-lot basis the same time to run as 10 lots on 1 account. That has a lot of symmetry in my view.
3. Harvester Certifications. This can be gotten around to achieve static lots if each person grinds out to the certification level on the other person's server. But it would affect folks like me a lot more than just eliminating admin. Because I don't mind so much having to use each toon for that toon's harvs. I do mind a lot having to give up precious skill points with my combat toon. And I bet other combat players would mind too.
4. A combination of more than one of the above. This would obviously have cumulative effects.
The more I think about it, the more removing admin sounds like an even better option than certification...of course nothing says removing admin must be used in lieu of certification and not in addition to certification.
Cafa
Thu Jun 17, 2004 2:26 pm
#33
joined42904 wrote:
Halaster,
[snip]
The more I think about it, the more removing admin sounds like an even better option than certification...of course nothing says removing admin must be used in lieu of certification and not in addition to certification.
So, the only people in the game that should get the benefits of GROUPING are non-crafters then?
Common admin is the equivalent of grouping to management of the guild's harvestors, factories and housing. If the number one reason for crafters to be a part of the guild disappears you are onlly hurting the little guy. Most serious long-term players that have large lot tracks have plans to get around this already in place.
Fivo Asia
StGabriel
Thu Jun 17, 2004 2:45 pm
#34
How is eliminating people's abilities to use harvesters the way they do now nerfing YOU?
I currently lotswap a lot and as such generate large stockpiles of resources that allow me to craft massively with little fear of running out of resources. I am supporting approaches that would limit my ability to do this, as I feel that this will make an overall better market. In the short term I am exactly proposing things that will "nerf" the competitive advantage that -I- currently enjoy. The practical result in the long run is of course a better market which will be better for all crafters.
That I will be "nerfed" over the short term does not daunt me at all. I have confidence in my abilities as a player and think that I can do very well by any system. If the result is a better, more challenging game, then I am confident that I will not only succeed but that I will have more fun doing so.
I currently lotswap a lot and as such generate large stockpiles of resources that allow me to craft massively with little fear of running out of resources. I am supporting approaches that would limit my ability to do this, as I feel that this will make an overall better market. In the short term I am exactly proposing things that will "nerf" the competitive advantage that -I- currently enjoy. The practical result in the long run is of course a better market which will be better for all crafters.
That I will be "nerfed" over the short term does not daunt me at all. I have confidence in my abilities as a player and think that I can do very well by any system. If the result is a better, more challenging game, then I am confident that I will not only succeed but that I will have more fun doing so.
Message Edited by StGabriel on 06-17-2004 05:47 PM
CapnKate
Thu Jun 17, 2004 4:00 pm
#35
There's a number of things to respond to, including the direct question following my post, but I believe i can sum up all of my replies:
It is literally impossible for a Doctor to harvest all the necessary resources for the profession on ten lots. So whatever solution presents itself must take this into account. The idea of taking up less lots when certified isn't bad... except that this probably won't stop the x-server trading. maybe reduce it a bit.
But we're thinking in proper directions, for which i'm grateful. Accidentally crippling legitimate players that rely on some aspects of the current system would be a terrible thing to see happen.
It is literally impossible for a Doctor to harvest all the necessary resources for the profession on ten lots. So whatever solution presents itself must take this into account. The idea of taking up less lots when certified isn't bad... except that this probably won't stop the x-server trading. maybe reduce it a bit.
But we're thinking in proper directions, for which i'm grateful. Accidentally crippling legitimate players that rely on some aspects of the current system would be a terrible thing to see happen.
CapnKate
Thu Jun 17, 2004 4:05 pm
#36
There's a number of things to respond to, including the direct question following my post, but I believe i can sum up all of my replies:
It is literally impossible for a Doctor to harvest all the necessary resources for the profession on ten lots, and most of the crafters I know are similarly full up on their lots, and thus the non-crafting folks in our guild are needed to make up the lack. So whatever solution presents itself must take this into account. The idea of taking up less lots when certified isn't bad... except that this probably won't stop the x-server trading. maybe reduce it a bit.
But we're thinking in proper directions, for which i'm grateful. Accidentally crippling legitimate players that rely on some aspects of the current system would be a terrible thing to see happen.
It is literally impossible for a Doctor to harvest all the necessary resources for the profession on ten lots, and most of the crafters I know are similarly full up on their lots, and thus the non-crafting folks in our guild are needed to make up the lack. So whatever solution presents itself must take this into account. The idea of taking up less lots when certified isn't bad... except that this probably won't stop the x-server trading. maybe reduce it a bit.
But we're thinking in proper directions, for which i'm grateful. Accidentally crippling legitimate players that rely on some aspects of the current system would be a terrible thing to see happen.
HalasterTheBlack
Thu Jun 17, 2004 4:29 pm
#38
And here's what's dreadfully wrong with each solution:
joined42904 wrote:
Halaster,
I don't see the contradiction, but maybe I didn't explain myself well.
There are a number of proposed systems.
1. Limit total lots per account. I would be completely unaffected by this. So would most folks who don't cross lot trade. I don't know about you but I assume that you would be unaffected by this as well, Halaster unless you rent lots from folks who have crafters on other servers and you don't know you're doing that.
Punishes people who legitimately want to play multiple different types of characters but who don't want to or can't afford to pay formultiple accounts.
2. Eliminate admin on harvesters. If folks have to get very involved in the lots that they are renting, they may get interested enough to start mining themselves. (Think about it...make a lot more money than just a lot rental but you have to find the spot and buy your harvs. Harvs aren't all that expensive, though they seem expensive to a new player.) Totally mining by themselves wouldn't be all that much more work than what they will have to do to rent out their lots. So you would probably see fewer lots rented (well...maybe still some donated within guilds but not rented and the donator of lots would probably be a donatee of armor or some such from a guildmate that would have more value than what lot renters typically get these days). The more I think about it the more beautiful the eliminate admin proposal seems to me. Because that means this guy has to put in his own power and his own maintenence, too. It also has the beauty of making running 40 lots on 4 accounts take on a per-lot basis the same time to run as 10 lots on 1 account. That has a lot of symmetry in my view.
Discourages some lot renters from renting, which reduces the influx of resources into galaxies. Nobody has quantified that there is a glut of resources, so this *might* be a bad thing. Hinders people whose IRL commitments can take them away from the game with short notice by forcing them to violate EULA by giving their login info to friends to keep their harvesters from imploding.
3. Harvester Certifications. This can be gotten around to achieve static lots if each person grinds out to the certification level on the other person's server. But it would affect folks like me a lot more than just eliminating admin. Because I don't mind so much having to use each toon for that toon's harvs. I do mind a lot having to give up precious skill points with my combat toon. And I bet other combat players would mind too.
Can be easily circumvented by x-server lot traders and discourages on-server lot rental even more than option #2. If #2 *is* bad because there really isn't a glut, #3 is way worse.
4. A combination of more than one of the above. This would obviously have cumulative effects.
So combine 3 bad ideas into a... good idea? How's that work? Sounds like my teenage daughter who wants to dance 7 hours a day but live on ice cream, and who also has no time to clean her room but wants to agility train a Sheltie.
The more I think about it, the more removing admin sounds like an even better option than certification...of course nothing says removing admin must be used in lieu of certification and not in addition to certification.
I would rather wait to see if there really *is* a resource glut issue. I mean *after* the holo-grind is laid to rest. If there is, I'll be gung-ho about solving that problem.
I would also rather wait to see if the demise of the holo-grind eliminates x-server lot trades nearly entirely as well. With fewer people buying grind-quality resources, those who can only mine grind quality resources the majority of the time(as static lot holders must) will go out of business.
In short, let's err on the side of caution. The economic game is not overly difficult for anyone right now. Let's don't react to a situation that may not exist and maybe create The Great Depression in the doing.
Let the devs say, "There are 50% more resources entering the galaxies than we want there to be. Let's talk about fixing that." THEN I jump on board.
StGabriel
Thu Jun 17, 2004 11:53 pm
#39
In short, let's err on the side of caution. The economic game is not overly difficult for anyone right now. Let's don't react to a situation that may not exist and maybe create The Great Depression in the doing.
Erring on the side of caution would mean restricting resource acquisition. Once resources are out there they cannot be taken back (easily). Thus the conservative approach is to restrict resource output now and only slowly build it back up while monitoring the economy. Imbalances in resource acquisition now threaten to leave behind stockpiles of resources that could be causing economic problems for months if not years to come.
StGabe.
Erring on the side of caution would mean restricting resource acquisition. Once resources are out there they cannot be taken back (easily). Thus the conservative approach is to restrict resource output now and only slowly build it back up while monitoring the economy. Imbalances in resource acquisition now threaten to leave behind stockpiles of resources that could be causing economic problems for months if not years to come.
StGabe.