cRPG and economy, a petition to end the communistic injustice

[BaldRider]

The value of gold
Before the marketplace gold had a very low value, since it’s only real use was to allow you to play with heavier equipment.
However, with the implementation of a free market, you have put a value to gold by allowing heirlooms to be traded. The supply of heirlooms will determine the value of gold.
Supply and demand.

This means that now that the gold income is actually worth something on a public market, the old gold system which gives out an equal amount of gold between all players in the team is no longer acceptable. If it were a true form of giving out the same amounts of gold, it would be, but as soon as you take reparations into consideration, you are actively rewarding players for wearing less armor.

Wearing less armor means you will be of less benefit to your team.
Wearing less armor rewards you with more gold, and in the long run, more heirlooms.
Where is the sense in being rewarded for being a disadvantage to your team?


Some math:

(click to show/hide)

This system is heavily abusable, for example:
Getting to level 31 requires  8,892,403 exp.
This equals out to a gross income of 444600, without taking repairs into consideration.
This means, that playing with a low-cost equipment doubles your overtime efficiency, scoring you two heirlooms over one generation, instead of one.

Instead of this, I suggest a system much alike the one we currently have, however with an added variable in the calculation. This system is for gold only, experience should stay the way it is.

Create a basic overtime goldtick (like we currently have) however make it able to sustain only 30k worth of equipment, instead of the current 45k+ equipment.
This for the sake of new players and an overall income, to not have players ruin their economy because they are not making enough gold.

These last 15k worth of equipment should be earned by doing damage. Doing 50 hp worth of damage (the average health of a player) should equal gaining gold enough to supply the last 15k of equipment.
If you kill more, you will score more gold, and if you kill less, you will only make the 30k worth of equipment from the overall tick.

Let us leave this abusable socialistic system where the people who work hard are rewarded less than the ones who abuse the system to earn easy gold.
This redrag communistic madness must end!


Summarized
30k overall gold tick, do damage for the last 15k worth of equipment repairs.


PROS and CONS
Pros    
Leeching (Rushing in and dying) would be less beneficial.
People would no longer gain an over time advantage by carrying less armor, or playing specs that require less gear upkeep.

Cons
New players might have troubles making money and sustaining good gear.

[nuffen]

So basicly the market makes the system communistic? Free market = communism?
Cool bro, take a pill

[22nd_Hawk_Cmdr_Harlequin]

Although it is nice, comunism can't be beat, Stalin is waiting for ye ass! 

[BaldRider]

So basicly the market makes the system communistic? Free market = communism?
Cool bro, take a pill

The market is a great step to a more fun economy. However as long as the income is evenly divided between players it is not fair. Especially when these players have different repair costs.

You replied within less than 2 minutes of me posting the thread.
I heavily doubt you even read the thread before posting your own mildly retarded conclusion. Go troll elsewhere.

[Lezard]

Wtf, think you've started to take cRPG too seriously Baldie.

/troll

[Tzar]

NO.

/End Thread

[chadz]

very good points
(i probably disagree about the solution, but i agree about the problem)

[Cheap_Shot]

This would quickly turn into a "rich get richer" situation. New players would never make money. Bow users and throwers who don't wear as much armor and die quickly would never make money. Support classes who do less damage then roided out two handers would never make money. The only people who would make money would be the heavily armored and experienced tanks with all their gear tripple heirloomed, who already have all the money and heirlooms they need. Thread is funny and all, but was this a serious idea?

[Astinus]

You are assuming that gold has a value, while I think that apart the first week of market madness when people were selling mw gears for low amounts of gold we won't see many cases of looms payed with gold currency simply because the offer is too low to risk your time consuming masterwork weapon even for shitloads of gold.

crpg is condamned to a trade economy imo, at least until we'll see what changes strategus will bring

Wtf, think you've started to take cRPG too seriously Baldie.

/troll

also this 

[chadz]

i totally agree that the marketplace has the potential to change how the game is played.
the point is that before it didn't matter if you had 300k or 600k gold.
now it does.

needless to say, we need a different solution than the proposed one, it would just cause less teamplay.

[Spawny]

Easy fix would be a "trade only" on heirloomed weapons/armours.

You can only trade your heirlooms for an equal amount of modifiers.

IE: +3 for a +3 or for a +2 and a +1

You can only pay gold for normal items, so you might get a discount on that horsie you want.

[El_Infante]

Of course, market need changes.

Easy fix would be a "trade only" on heirloomed weapons/armours.

You can only trade your heirlooms for an equal amount of modifiers.

IE: +3 for a +3 or for a +2 and a +1

You can only pay gold for normal items, so you might get a discount on that horsie you want.

That was a good idea. The fun of the market should be changing your heirlooms with other players to be able to play different improved classes after retiring.

[RiPLeY_II]

Of course, market need changes.

That was a good idea. The fun of the market should be changing your heirlooms with other players to be able to play different improved classes after retiring.

No way. If you do that, then we would go back to where we were, in a world where money had no value other than wearing better equipment.

A possible solution to this problem, WITHOUT wrecking gameplay would be to reward more money to  the winning teams at the end of a round (instead of rewarding indivirual players as BaldRider suggested). Something like maintaining the normal gold ticks as we have now, and giving a SUSTANTIAL gold gaining for winning rounds (and increasing this bonus more if rounds are won in a row).

You know, this is just an idea. It needs some tweaking and testing, but i think that if we follow this line, we'll get what we want (reward gameplay, encourage players to wear medium/heavy armor to win rounds in order to win money).

In addition to that , if we want to reward single characters that outstand in a team, we could reward some  players for "specific achievements" at the end of a round (p.e. reward the players capturing the flag on siege), but that bonuses should be slightly less than the team bonus, and just optional.

[Tears of Destiny]

This is captalism, not communism, that people are complaining about.

-1 for not understanding what communism is, nor what a free market is.

[Banok]

I dont think it really changes anything.

only reason anyone would sell hierlooms for gold only is if they REALLY wanted to use a plated charger every round and played so much that retiring wasn't difficult. never really had a problem with upkeep even in 40k gear.

just cause you can trade doesn't mean this game has anything even close to a simulating a economy, sorry to burst your bubble.

maybe there will be an ecconomy in strat...