Business And Economy Archive
Thread: Cross Server lot trading
Khristen
Tue Jan 18, 2005 4:33 pm
#14
I don't think cross-server lot trades were something intended by the devs at the start. There's a reason characters have a limited number of lots available to them.
At the same time, it's not something that has an easy fix to it. The one I've heard suggested by the devs (at Fan Fest when discussing the problem of cross-server lot trading) is to remove the admin function on structures. This is certainly not a desireable solution to "legitimate" characters who enlist the assistance of other players through same-server trades and associations.
While many good "solutions" have been offered, most of them don't prevent the loop-holeof cross-server lot trade arrangements between players. Even opening more harvester-only lots to players of a certain skill-level doesn't prevent it; it only opens up more lots to be traded.
Perhaps the solution is to tie the number of lots to the account rather than the player, with a reduction of the total possible lots available (meaning less than 80 as it stands now--8 characters per account). It may limit the number of characters that you can viably play on another server, and would increase the number of structures placed by the players currently playing by-the-book, but it's the best solution I've heard offered on the issue overall (not just in this thread).
Just because it can be done even though it wasn't intended, doesn't mean it should. Unfortunately, that doesn't stop people from doing it.
sknomad
Tue Jan 18, 2005 7:24 pm
#15
master maveric:
"They do you as a player have 100 lots avalibe to you. You need to rephrase this to make your point."
I would agree with you.. if there was a built-in way to transfer lots between your own characters.. say you have 8 characters, if you were allowed to arbitrarily assign how many lots per character you wanted.. but you can't, they locked it at 10 lots per character for a reason. Just like they locked it at 1 character per server per account, for a reason.
"Ya the devs dont want to have to mess with the data base and if your house transfered with your toon chances are it would spawan in the middle of someone elses house."
I'm sure they could plunk it down in a random spot, it's not like the servers are that over populated that there are no room for houses. There are other reasons other than 'they are lazy'.
"The devs said AFK Macroing is not a exploit or work around and that it is a ligit function of the game though it was not intended. How is it any differnt?"
and yet it's been said to be getting the axe (recursive macroing) for how long now?
"Is this about lot tradeing or is a vendeta against people with multipul accounts?"
it's about lot trading, and how it unbalances the server economy... I would have thought that would have been obvious if you had read the posts.
"Again what is this real about? and if you dont care why do you seam to care?"
it's about making money, and balancing the economy.
Balance means find a fulcrum where new players don't get screwed for months while they try to build their characters. I am not new, nor am I poor, but I think of more than just myself.
"If your not a crafter you have no idea what this means. Not only is does it hurt the comunity as a whole which is the only thing that makes SWG differnt from EQ2 but it has so many work arounds its not funney specialy when your talking about multiple accounts not lot swaping."
do you think the resources would just ... dry up and vanish ?
no, more likely artisans would get more work surveying, new players would plunk down their own harvesters, and crafters would be forced to buy some of the materials they need. Thus spreading the money around the server population more, lowering prices, and balancing the economy.
You need to decide if your against lot swaps, mulitpul accounts, or the game as a whole man and by the way im a non-swaper/non-afk macroer but i do own 3 accounts. I can tell you personaly, manageing all my stuff with out the ability to give my other toons administration would be a nightmare. You have no idea what you are suggesting
and you need to spend less time coloring your text, and more time reading.
I stated (I thought clearly) - that I felt it would be best if characters did not have access to more lots than their own, allow administration for upkeep payments or whatever, perhaps for picking up and dropping stuff in houses, but end it at that. That is why there is a hard limit on caps, if the devs did not intend for there to be a cap, every character would have gotten their own 40 lots or whatever other ridiculous number you want to throw out there.
There really is not a way to moderate the use of lots in any kind of easy fashion, but it could be done perhaps, in the manner some one above suggested, assigning a decay rate to harvesters (and take the maintenance costs away, but still keep the power upkeep) - creating more work for architects in the process. Or perhaps by allowing administrative rights, but not allowing non-owners to pull the items out of the harvs. It would not eradicate the problem entirely, but it might make it enough of a deterant to discourage players from creating the massive fields of harvs you see now. Or simply, set a maximum number of structures that any 1 character can have admin access to.
"They do you as a player have 100 lots avalibe to you. You need to rephrase this to make your point."
I would agree with you.. if there was a built-in way to transfer lots between your own characters.. say you have 8 characters, if you were allowed to arbitrarily assign how many lots per character you wanted.. but you can't, they locked it at 10 lots per character for a reason. Just like they locked it at 1 character per server per account, for a reason.
"Ya the devs dont want to have to mess with the data base and if your house transfered with your toon chances are it would spawan in the middle of someone elses house."
I'm sure they could plunk it down in a random spot, it's not like the servers are that over populated that there are no room for houses. There are other reasons other than 'they are lazy'.
"The devs said AFK Macroing is not a exploit or work around and that it is a ligit function of the game though it was not intended. How is it any differnt?"
and yet it's been said to be getting the axe (recursive macroing) for how long now?
"Is this about lot tradeing or is a vendeta against people with multipul accounts?"
it's about lot trading, and how it unbalances the server economy... I would have thought that would have been obvious if you had read the posts.
"Again what is this real about? and if you dont care why do you seam to care?"
it's about making money, and balancing the economy.
Balance means find a fulcrum where new players don't get screwed for months while they try to build their characters. I am not new, nor am I poor, but I think of more than just myself.
"If your not a crafter you have no idea what this means. Not only is does it hurt the comunity as a whole which is the only thing that makes SWG differnt from EQ2 but it has so many work arounds its not funney specialy when your talking about multiple accounts not lot swaping."
do you think the resources would just ... dry up and vanish ?
no, more likely artisans would get more work surveying, new players would plunk down their own harvesters, and crafters would be forced to buy some of the materials they need. Thus spreading the money around the server population more, lowering prices, and balancing the economy.
You need to decide if your against lot swaps, mulitpul accounts, or the game as a whole man and by the way im a non-swaper/non-afk macroer but i do own 3 accounts. I can tell you personaly, manageing all my stuff with out the ability to give my other toons administration would be a nightmare. You have no idea what you are suggesting
and you need to spend less time coloring your text, and more time reading.
I stated (I thought clearly) - that I felt it would be best if characters did not have access to more lots than their own, allow administration for upkeep payments or whatever, perhaps for picking up and dropping stuff in houses, but end it at that. That is why there is a hard limit on caps, if the devs did not intend for there to be a cap, every character would have gotten their own 40 lots or whatever other ridiculous number you want to throw out there.
There really is not a way to moderate the use of lots in any kind of easy fashion, but it could be done perhaps, in the manner some one above suggested, assigning a decay rate to harvesters (and take the maintenance costs away, but still keep the power upkeep) - creating more work for architects in the process. Or perhaps by allowing administrative rights, but not allowing non-owners to pull the items out of the harvs. It would not eradicate the problem entirely, but it might make it enough of a deterant to discourage players from creating the massive fields of harvs you see now. Or simply, set a maximum number of structures that any 1 character can have admin access to.
Message Edited by sknomad on 01-18-2005 10:07 PM
czarnp
Tue Jan 18, 2005 7:32 pm
#16
Why not have a real estate profession? It could be similar to a smuggler with faction points, you buy lots "wholesale" from an NPC and you can resell. Price could vary depending on planet and location.
Give every player a spot for a muliplayer ship, and 5 lots, otherwise you need to buy.
Just a thought I am tossing out there.
Ybagi
Tue Jan 18, 2005 7:46 pm
#17
Lot trading is an exploit plain and simple, you are given 10 lots, that is what you get, anything done to have access to more than ten lots is an unfair advantage and should not be allowed.
That being said some profession/positions need access to more lots;
-a guild leader should be granted extra lots to place a guild hall, or the operation of a guild should not be tied to a guild hall. The lot requirement of a guildhall makes it very hard for a serious crafter to run a guild.
-crafters need more lots, with the added storage requirements, need of factories and harvestors has prevented me as a crafter from ever owning a large house, ever being able to display my collection of goods I have accumulated since I started playing.
My suggestion is that lots be setup as follows:
-everyone gets 10 lots for building structures.
-advanced crafters get 10 additional lots for factory/harvestors
sknomad
Tue Jan 18, 2005 7:47 pm
#18
phael'yn:
Not at all - Again, one person can "buy" lots on the server itself, even if the character being bought from has to do some of the work IE; placing Maintenance and power, I would STILL have the benefits from the 40 lots. This too is a Work Around, in your words - and therefore is it also illegal in the rules of the game?
no, because it would involve the other player having to do stuff.. if they want to harvest the resources, and give them away free.. that's their choice. Plus, you are paying a player on the *same server* to setup the harvs for you, thus helping to boost/balance the economy.
Yes - but the TRUE reason isn't because of in game economies - it's due to real world coding. If there was an easy way for a character to be transferred with everything they own, I guarantee you SOE would implement it.
it's not that difficult to take item A and assign it a new serial number in a new database, and could be done 100% through automated scripting. I don't know the databasing system they use on the backend here, but even the most basic of databases can be merged together in this manner.
Not quite the same at all - I am saying that a lot is a lot is a lot, whether it is from someone who actively plays on this server or not.
you're right, it's still a lot, but that doesn't mean an idle player should be able to give his/her lots to others. Again, going back to the reason that soe capped the number of lots per character in the first place.
However, can you please give me an instance where someone with 80 lots unbalances an economy? MY math shows that someone with 10 lots can mine at exactly the same extraction rate and cost as the person with 80. The difference IS that the player with 80 lots can UNDERSELL the player with only 10, and still make a profit.
true, but also, the person with more lots gets more units of a given resource, maybe even 2-3 resources. That right there is an imbalance. Player A should have the exact same opportunity and ability to harvest just as much as Player B -- without lot trades (see my comments/suggestions in previous post)
By selling the resource at a lower cost, many more crafters will be able to afford the resources to make more goods, which they in turn will be able to sell at a lower cpu, and still make profit. More lots doesn't make the economy inflate - it assists the economy in lowering overall costs. You argue on the basis that it is unfair to the "little guy", which is a misnomer.
without lot trading, there is no "little guy", and no one undercuts the other guy - and if he does, the quantity of resources available at the undercut price, is extremely limited. Demand is dictated by supply, and if you have some copper that you want to sell for 10cpu, and I have the same copper (in the same amount) that I want to sell at 5cpu - then there is nothing wrong with that, it is a free market, and the market itself sets the price. Considering the amount of time/effort/money that goes into harvesting 100k of a given resource (with a harvester), it wouldn't hurt people to sell for a reasonable price, or have the market set the price in the middle of the 2, but instead the guy with 20 harvs on 1 resource can sell it at 3cpu all day long, and force you and I to lower our prices if we want to sell it. That's not right.
So right there, Player A and B can NEVER have the same opportunities. Unless he was to trade lots cross servers....
unless admin rights are restricted in some fashion. -- I agree
How does that stop harvest farming? it doesn't at all. It only adds one additional step to the process.
1 extra step that takes 1/2 hr per character - to go out, retrieve the resources, pay maintenance and take them back to a shared house. So say you have 4 accounts, that gives you 40 lots, at 1/2 hr per character to do this once per week or so, that's 2 hrs of time. People will still do it, but it would atleast make it an unattractive concept.
The economy isn't broken due to harvesting farms. It's broken due to a LOT of different attributes. The ONLY argument that holds any solid ground in regards to harvesting fields is this: It limits the playing space for active characters.
agreed it is broken on several fronts, but is that a reason to not try and fix it one front at a time? If your toaster is broken and keeps burning your toast.. how long till you try to fix it, or buy a new toaster.. mmmmm burnt toast YUM! heh
bottom line is, if soe feels that cross server lot trading is not something that they envisioned, and it is not something that they want in the game, then they need to do something about it. They haven't said either way right? (that's what this thread was about) - chances are they are too scared to do it now because they realize they would loose another 1/3rd of their population. And while I don't want people to leave the game, I would like it to be fixed, and balanced.
never know, there is that merchant balance they whisper about that comes after the combat update.. they could find some way to adjust this issue in that update... and the easter bunny could be real
Not at all - Again, one person can "buy" lots on the server itself, even if the character being bought from has to do some of the work IE; placing Maintenance and power, I would STILL have the benefits from the 40 lots. This too is a Work Around, in your words - and therefore is it also illegal in the rules of the game?
no, because it would involve the other player having to do stuff.. if they want to harvest the resources, and give them away free.. that's their choice. Plus, you are paying a player on the *same server* to setup the harvs for you, thus helping to boost/balance the economy.
Yes - but the TRUE reason isn't because of in game economies - it's due to real world coding. If there was an easy way for a character to be transferred with everything they own, I guarantee you SOE would implement it.
it's not that difficult to take item A and assign it a new serial number in a new database, and could be done 100% through automated scripting. I don't know the databasing system they use on the backend here, but even the most basic of databases can be merged together in this manner.
Not quite the same at all - I am saying that a lot is a lot is a lot, whether it is from someone who actively plays on this server or not.
you're right, it's still a lot, but that doesn't mean an idle player should be able to give his/her lots to others. Again, going back to the reason that soe capped the number of lots per character in the first place.
However, can you please give me an instance where someone with 80 lots unbalances an economy? MY math shows that someone with 10 lots can mine at exactly the same extraction rate and cost as the person with 80. The difference IS that the player with 80 lots can UNDERSELL the player with only 10, and still make a profit.
true, but also, the person with more lots gets more units of a given resource, maybe even 2-3 resources. That right there is an imbalance. Player A should have the exact same opportunity and ability to harvest just as much as Player B -- without lot trades (see my comments/suggestions in previous post)
By selling the resource at a lower cost, many more crafters will be able to afford the resources to make more goods, which they in turn will be able to sell at a lower cpu, and still make profit. More lots doesn't make the economy inflate - it assists the economy in lowering overall costs. You argue on the basis that it is unfair to the "little guy", which is a misnomer.
without lot trading, there is no "little guy", and no one undercuts the other guy - and if he does, the quantity of resources available at the undercut price, is extremely limited. Demand is dictated by supply, and if you have some copper that you want to sell for 10cpu, and I have the same copper (in the same amount) that I want to sell at 5cpu - then there is nothing wrong with that, it is a free market, and the market itself sets the price. Considering the amount of time/effort/money that goes into harvesting 100k of a given resource (with a harvester), it wouldn't hurt people to sell for a reasonable price, or have the market set the price in the middle of the 2, but instead the guy with 20 harvs on 1 resource can sell it at 3cpu all day long, and force you and I to lower our prices if we want to sell it. That's not right.
So right there, Player A and B can NEVER have the same opportunities. Unless he was to trade lots cross servers....
unless admin rights are restricted in some fashion. -- I agree
How does that stop harvest farming? it doesn't at all. It only adds one additional step to the process.
1 extra step that takes 1/2 hr per character - to go out, retrieve the resources, pay maintenance and take them back to a shared house. So say you have 4 accounts, that gives you 40 lots, at 1/2 hr per character to do this once per week or so, that's 2 hrs of time. People will still do it, but it would atleast make it an unattractive concept.
The economy isn't broken due to harvesting farms. It's broken due to a LOT of different attributes. The ONLY argument that holds any solid ground in regards to harvesting fields is this: It limits the playing space for active characters.
agreed it is broken on several fronts, but is that a reason to not try and fix it one front at a time? If your toaster is broken and keeps burning your toast.. how long till you try to fix it, or buy a new toaster.. mmmmm burnt toast YUM! heh
bottom line is, if soe feels that cross server lot trading is not something that they envisioned, and it is not something that they want in the game, then they need to do something about it. They haven't said either way right? (that's what this thread was about) - chances are they are too scared to do it now because they realize they would loose another 1/3rd of their population. And while I don't want people to leave the game, I would like it to be fixed, and balanced.
never know, there is that merchant balance they whisper about that comes after the combat update.. they could find some way to adjust this issue in that update... and the easter bunny could be real
Message Edited by sknomad on 01-18-2005 10:05 PM
sknomad
Tue Jan 18, 2005 7:51 pm
#19
btw, to add color to posts... is it just simple html script ? where do I find this info?
would make it a lot easier to read replies
would make it a lot easier to read replies
![gggg[]ggggggggggggggg)](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v139/chesnut/deadwoman.jpg){kind=link}
Tzosskinati
Tue Jan 18, 2005 8:28 pm
#21
I cross Server Lot trade...alot....
Without the swap lots prices will go through the roof. You think paying 2-3 cpu for premium stat resources is alot...well if you do away with cross server lots the economy will die in the game..there wont be enough resources harvested to keep the economy flowing smoothly. The Impact of taking this away will be serious to the game and I beleive the Devs see this and understand that blocking this would be detrimental to the game...
Prices will skyrocket for lack of resources....
Without the swap lots prices will go through the roof. You think paying 2-3 cpu for premium stat resources is alot...well if you do away with cross server lots the economy will die in the game..there wont be enough resources harvested to keep the economy flowing smoothly. The Impact of taking this away will be serious to the game and I beleive the Devs see this and understand that blocking this would be detrimental to the game...
Prices will skyrocket for lack of resources....
Razzilon
Tue Jan 18, 2005 8:53 pm
#22
"Set a maximum number of structures any 1 player can have admin access to."
This is the best idea I have seen so far, but I think there should also be an exception:
If I pay for 1 or 50 accounts, each character I create on a server, should be able to have
admin access on any other structure owned by any other character I have on that server.
Now granted, you can still limit the number of characters one 'payee' can create on a server.
I have known some ppl who payed for 10 accounts or more, but that is a matter of
REAL LIFE economics........ there are no easy solutions.
"you can please some of the people, some of the time, but you will never please all of the
people, all of the time"
This is the best idea I have seen so far, but I think there should also be an exception:
If I pay for 1 or 50 accounts, each character I create on a server, should be able to have
admin access on any other structure owned by any other character I have on that server.
Now granted, you can still limit the number of characters one 'payee' can create on a server.
I have known some ppl who payed for 10 accounts or more, but that is a matter of
REAL LIFE economics........ there are no easy solutions.
"you can please some of the people, some of the time, but you will never please all of the
people, all of the time"
sknomad
Tue Jan 18, 2005 8:54 pm
#23
Tzosskinati wrote:
I cross Server Lot trade...alot....
Without the swap lots prices will go through the roof. You think paying 2-3 cpu for premium stat resources is alot...well if you do away with cross server lots the economy will die in the game..there wont be enough resources harvested to keep the economy flowing smoothly. The Impact of taking this away will be serious to the game and I beleive the Devs see this and understand that blocking this would be detrimental to the game...
Prices will skyrocket for lack of resources....
yes.. prices will spike.. and then even out. just like with the solo group nerf, people start spending less, and as such, demand is lowered, and prices drop accordingly to what the 'market' can afford.
it's supply and demand.. if you're presented with a choice of buying something for 10 bucks, or the exact same thing for 15 bucks.. what are you gonna pick?
it's just up to crafters to weather the storm, just like combatants are weathering the solo group payout nerf.
Also, as far as 'there will not be enough resources available' ..
pay guild mates, or other players to setup harvs for you. The entire reason I don't setup harvs for myself right now is because I know selling the resource, unless it's super good, isn't really worth my time. The time and money it takes to maintain harvs to sell grinding resources at .5 - 1 - 2 cpu at the most just isn't worth it. since i have no crafting professions, I have no surveying, and so, 99% of the time, the resources I would gather would be crud.
As crafters, you could spend some of those piles of money you have to either pay people to survey spots for you, or pay players (on the same server) to setup harvs on their lots for you. end result - you still get the resources - yes, you still get more lots than the average person, but you're putting money back into the economy.
in effect, you're not getting anything for free. heh.
don't tell me the amount of resources will cripple you.. it will maybe make it so that it's worthwhile for other players to get into the crafting professions. People who right now, can't compete with the 40 lots of extra harvesters that some people have (or more).
Message Edited by sknomad on 01-18-2005 09:59 PM
Pawlin
Tue Jan 18, 2005 10:35 pm
#24
/agree sknomad
If they nerfed lot trades then it would have an initial impact and prices would probably spike. But then supply would pick up to meet the demand.
Phaelyn
Tue Jan 18, 2005 11:12 pm
#25
sknomad wrote:
There really is not a way to moderate the use of lots in any kind of easy fashion, but it could be done perhaps, in the manner some one above suggested, assigning a decay rate to harvesters (and take the maintenance costs away, but still keep the power upkeep) - creating more work for architects in the process. Or perhaps by allowing administrative rights, but not allowing non-owners to pull the items out of the harvs. It would not eradicate the problem entirely, but it might make it enough of a deterant to discourage players from creating the massive fields of harvs you see now. Or simply, set a maximum number of structures that any 1 character can have admin access to.
Message Edited by sknomad on 01-18-2005 10:07 PM
I think one of the basic problems we seem to be having with our discussion is that we are comparing apples and oranges. (Although in THIS case, the look an awful lot alike)
Yes, your above suggestions would work, particularly creating a set life to the Harvesters. That alone would discourage a good portion of the lot traders, as they look to their bottom line, and any detriment to their profit lowers that bottom line. The Admin idea also works quite well. Unfortunately, i don't see it changing the atmosphere one bit. Instead of a single person owning massive fields of harvesters due to lot trades, you will have A) a single person with multiple accounts owning those massive fields or B) A Co-Op of players who pool their resources (lots) together to create those massive fields. All Eliminating cross server trades will do is create monopolies across the board.
If you deem cross server Lot trading as illegal, you make it so that only the people with multiple accounts can have multiples of 10 lots. In this situation, it would not stimulate the server's economy - In fact, it MAY inflate it even further. Many of the Multiple account types and Lot traders do so to earn credits to sell on Ebay or similiar services. If you force them to pay in the real world an additional $15 per character to do so, they will do so - Simply because their Ebay sales make far more money than the $15 per account. If they had to long onto X number of characters to do it - this will not deter, as it is a few moments work to switch and relog. And because we've made it a situation where they spend more time doing so - They would most likely raise or maintain the current pricing levels for resources, not drop them.
The bottom line is this - The "evil" isn't in the lot trades - the evil is in allowing people to sell credits, which are quite literally the intellectual property of SOE, even though they aren'ta tangible good. If SOE were to crack down and stop this practice (Very easy to do in actuality - have someone "buy" the credits, and after transfer in game, suspend the offending account). Eliminate the sellers, and lot trades will not be attractive except to the very few who just want a few more lots for an extra house or harvester for personal crafting use. Lot trades for massive harvesting farms would be a thing in the past.
Phaelyn
Tue Jan 18, 2005 11:19 pm
#26
Ybagi wrote:
Lot trading is an exploit plain and simple, you are given 10 lots, that is what you get, anything done to have access to more than ten lots is an unfair advantage and should not be allowed.
An Exploit is undertaking to reproduce a bug that inherently is impossible within the game's mechanics. Double slicing was an exploit - Lot trades at BEST are a work around *suggested* rules. It doesn't break the game's mechanics one iota.
That being said some profession/positions need access to more lots;
-a guild leader should be granted extra lots to place a guild hall, or the operation of a guild should not be tied to a guild hall. The lot requirement of a guildhall makes it very hard for a serious crafter to run a guild.
-crafters need more lots, with the added storage requirements, need of factories and harvestors has prevented me as a crafter from ever owning a large house, ever being able to display my collection of goods I have accumulated since I started playing.
My suggestion is that lots be setup as follows:
-everyone gets 10 lots for building structures.
-advanced crafters get 10 additional lots for factory/harvestors
Why stop there? Why not add Merchants get an additional 10 because they can run a megastore? Or a Scout should get an additinal 10 because they must store all those hides they collect.?
The only viable way I see of adding additional lots is due to longevity. Every year you play, you receive a stipend of an extra 2 lots. That way, veterans receive a step up, and can expand their character because they have earned it.