PvP/anti PvP structure cost increases
#1
Posted 04 October 2010 - 20:53
By the same token, those lovely folks at the Awareness Training could do with charging a bit more for looking after your gold, right? I'd pay a nice premium over and above what is currently charged.
I would differ in the exact increase, because they serve different purposes:
For the Bandit Camp and Thieves Guild I would multiply the current cost by half the number of active members in the guild. Even a full guild of 124 PvPers wouldn't put this beyond reasonable levels.
For the 'protect my gold sanctuary' I would do the same, but for one tenth of guild members, since everyone has gold to protect but the structure is initially more expensive.
I know it mentions PvP in the title, but as a gold sink both of these could work nicely to make a small inroad in market prices!
Flame retardant underpants on.
(Edited to reduce the PvP structure costs in line with discussion.)
Edit 2. Used wrong structure and values. Noob.)
#2
fs_regnier7
Posted 04 October 2010 - 22:50
Goldthieving in and of itself is a sink anyway.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=97390&start=0
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=97481&start=0
also, a structure that could up the thievery or mster thief enhancements to, or moreso allow them to go above, 100% that would be fairly cheap at the start and a little more expensive to max out would help sink gold and encourage more gold sinking through PvP.
#3
Posted 04 October 2010 - 23:18
Surely we can agree that the PvP enhancement structure costs are set way below what all guilds can afford?
Increasing above 100% - well, another topic maybe, but not a bad idea. I don't think either activates enough right now for a small increase to be a problem.
#4
fs_regnier7
Posted 04 October 2010 - 23:32
#5
fs_nthnclls
Posted 04 October 2010 - 23:45
#6
Posted 05 October 2010 - 00:03
I see this easily becoming a 100K gold per hour per structure type thing, but I think a modest increase would be a good idea.
Definitely way too much - that's why the formulae are there to keep things reasonable.
Taking both your guilds as examples:
nthnclls: New prices would be about 2500 for Awareness training, and nothing at all for the other two.
Reg: Same again, Awareness Training would be around 6900, 18,150 for the Thieves Guild and 67,760 for the Bandit Camp.
Now, maybe that's a little high for most guilds, but this is the highest level and one of the most active guilds in the game. They can afford it - but may choose not to.
The question is, what would the trade off be - for every guild like FFS that chooses not to spend 80,000 gold the game actually only loses a sink of 710. One guild paying that price sinks more gold than 90 choosing not to.
Look down the list of active guilds and you'll quickly see that only a small number would need to take up the offer to pay the new price and there would still be a net gold loss from the game.
If you like, halve the actual numbers - would 75k total for all three be unrealistic for FFS? No.
They already pay 32000 per hour for an extra 240 stamina each (big deal) and another 38000 for the more useful 20% buff duration increase. On that basis I've altered my original numbers by a factor of 2 to bring things into line with other aspects of the game.
Edit - numbers for Awareness training are much lower than the preemptive temple ones were.
#7
fs_nthnclls
Posted 05 October 2010 - 00:50
I see this easily becoming a 100K gold per hour per structure type thing, but I think a modest increase would be a good idea.
Definitely way too much - that's why the formulae are there to keep things reasonable.
Taking both your guilds as examples:
nthnclls: New prices would be 13,172 for the Preemptive Temple, and nothing at all for the other two.
Reg: Same again, Preemptive Temple would be 50,902, 18,150 for the Thieves Guild and 67,760 for the Bandit Camp.
Now, maybe that's a little high for most guilds, but this is the highest level and one of the most active guilds in the game. They can afford it - but may choose not to.
The question is, what would the trade off be - for every guild like FFS that chooses not to spend 80,000 gold the game actually only loses a sink of 710. One guild paying that price sinks more gold than 90 choosing not to.
Look down the list of active guilds and you'll quickly see that only a small number would need to take up the offer to pay the new price and there would still be a net gold loss from the game.
If you like, halve the actual numbers - would 75k total for all three be unrealistic for FFS? No.
They already pay 32000 per hour for an extra 240 stamina each (big deal) and another 38000 for the more useful 20% buff duration increase. On that basis I've altered my original numbers by a factor of 2 to bring things into line with other aspects of the game.
Yes, that would be a good increase, especially since doubling the price would mean that only more than half of the guilds would need to keep it in order for it to become a gold sink.
#8
Posted 05 October 2010 - 16:29
#9
Posted 05 October 2010 - 19:57
The best 'Protect Gold' structure is free. Don't keep any of it on hand.Sure - it (PvP) sinks gold. But with more expensive structures which most guilds would keep for completeness I think the amount of gold sunk would increase - especially with guilds paying more to keep their 'Protect Gold'.
Surely we can agree that the PvP enhancement structure costs are set way below what all guilds can afford?
And go ahead and keep your hand outta my wallet while you're at it. New structures, fine. But the current structure costs don't need to be tweaked. Give the devs something to come up with that is new and exciting. It's what continually sells the game anyway.
[Signature removed]
“When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say.” -GRRM
#10
Posted 06 October 2010 - 08:38
The best 'Protect Gold' structure is free. Don't keep any of it on hand.Sure - it (PvP) sinks gold. But with more expensive structures which most guilds would keep for completeness I think the amount of gold sunk would increase - especially with guilds paying more to keep their 'Protect Gold'.
Surely we can agree that the PvP enhancement structure costs are set way below what all guilds can afford?
And go ahead and keep your hand outta my wallet while you're at it. New structures, fine. But the current structure costs don't need to be tweaked. Give the devs something to come up with that is new and exciting. It's what continually sells the game anyway.
Yes, new ideas sell the game - but old ones need revisiting, right?
150/560 gold per hour for the PvP structures is laughable in comparison to the other ones, and keeps gold in the game. Therefore it needs updating.
Your attitude on this is typical - sink more gold, but don't take mine.
#11
Posted 06 October 2010 - 14:16
Greed will do that. That's why you could buy a gumball for a nickel back in the 1950s, but now it costs $0.50 or even $0.75. Everyone wants lower costs, but more of their own money. It doesn't work like that. If you charge more, things will cost more, and, therefore, eventually, wages will go up, making you get less of a percentage than when you started, even with that higher price.sink more gold, but don't take mine.
The only way to truly work it is with true Communism. (Not that crappy Communism that the Russians tried, which failed on them.)
#12
Posted 06 October 2010 - 14:36
Everyone knows we need gold *sinks*, not transfers. What people are unwilling to do is actually implement something which will hurt everyone's pocket, including their own. Those clamouring for more scavenging events *do* sink a lot of gold - but only if they think there is a chance they can profit from others buying their drops.
As soon as the drop rate becomes low or the drop worthless, people stop scavenging. We need permanent (as in not infrequent, optional events) sinks. Structures which people use and need are a good place to start in my eyes.
#13
Posted 06 October 2010 - 14:39
Greed will do that. That's why you could buy a gumball for a nickel back in the 1950s, but now it costs $0.50 or even $0.75. Everyone wants lower costs, but more of their own money. It doesn't work like that. If you charge more, things will cost more, and, therefore, eventually, wages will go up, making you get less of a percentage than when you started, even with that higher price.sink more gold, but don't take mine.
The only way to truly work it is with true Communism. (Not that crappy Communism that the Russians tried, which failed on them.)
Not sure how your lesson in capitalism applies when the gold sunk by structures disappears out of the game entirely. Less gold in the game is a good thing.
The big problem with the current suggestions are that people are only interested if they might make a profit. Scavengers *do* sink a lot of gold, but they hope to turn a profit from other people via drops. If the drop rate is low or the drop itself worthless then far fewer people scavenge and the effect on the economy is far less pronounced.
We need permanent (as in always on, not optional) ideas for gold sinks. I personally think structures which players are bound to have if they want to be successful are a good place to start - and the currently underpriced PvP related ones doubly so.
#14
Posted 06 October 2010 - 15:49
#15
fs_regnier7
Posted 06 October 2010 - 15:57
^thisYou would probably need to implement some sort of "thieveing" tax (previously suggested) to help guilds fund this increase.
Along with structures that increase, or allow, theivery and master thief beyond 100% like the reinforced armor structure. (more sinky sink there)
#16
Posted 06 October 2010 - 16:08
^thisYou would probably need to implement some sort of "thieveing" tax (previously suggested) to help guilds fund this increase.
Along with structures that increase, or allow, theivery and master thief beyond 100% like the reinforced armor structure. (more sinky sink there)
With these new structures I'm a little confused why they're needed over and above adding new levels to existing ones!
New enhancements = new structures.
Higher level enhancements = more levels on structures
(or at least that's how I see it!)
I also think a thievery tax could work out very nicely if HCS implemented it - and it would help make the structure cost increases viable for the guild while still sinking the same amount of gold.
i.e. 100% Lost Gold, of which 25% sunk, 15% taxed and 60% stolen would seem reasonable.
#17
fs_regnier7
Posted 06 October 2010 - 16:17
That's my opinion, anyway.
#18
Posted 06 October 2010 - 18:39
A player has 0 thievery, the minimum they can get from a gold hit is .5%(.005)
This structure provides 20% Thievery, an overall increase of .001 from the minimum possible gain.
Example:
Person has 1,000,000 gold
0% Thievery 100 Stam hit
You get 50,000 gold which is taxed by the game 25% total gained 37,500 gold out of 1 million
Maxed Thievery Structure
25% thievery 100 stam hit
You get 60,000 gold which is taxed by the game 25% total gained 45,000 gold out of 1 million
Having a structure that allows guilds to tax gold hits but that is expensive to maintain will simple not be used. What good does it do to tax gold hits and then have a large chunk of that gold used to pay for the structure. It would be better to just donate the gold by deposits.
#19
fs_regnier7
Posted 06 October 2010 - 18:52
Have the tax as an upgrade so it can eventually pay for itself?
That's my opinion, anyway.
#20
Posted 06 October 2010 - 18:57
To be clear here, I want to make sure you understand the math involved.
A player has 0 thievery, the minimum they can get from a gold hit is .5%(.005)
This structure provides 25% Thievery, an overall increase of .0015 from the minimum possible gain.
Example:
Person has 1,000,000 gold
0% Thievery 100 Stam hit
You get 50,000 gold which is taxed by the game 25% total gained 37,500 gold out of 1 million
Maxed Thievery Structure
25% thievery 100 stam hit
You get 65,000 gold which is taxed by the game 25% total gained 48,750 gold out of 1 million
Having a structure that allows guilds to tax gold hits but that is expensive to maintain will simple not be used. What good does it do to tax gold hits and then have a large chunk of that gold used to pay for the structure. It would be better to just donate the gold by deposits.
I do understand the maths behind this. Points to note on your examples:
1. Just about every single PvPer will be fairly active and not do just a couple of hits a week;
2. You use minimum values in your calculation - most real life hits with 100 stamina will actually earn substantially more than .5%. I belive with 100% thievery 20% is the 'current' maximum, with most being more like 15%. Thus, 1 gold hit pays more the thieves guild upkeep for a huge guild like FFS for several hours with a tax imposed;
3. The whole point of the structures is to be used by PvP guilds - so likely more than 1 person will be benefitting, PvPing and as a result paying the upkeep.
4. The fact that you get a minimum increase of 11250 gold per million means the structure will in all likelihood still be used.
Essentially, it would pay for itself and more gold would be sunk than is being sunk currently. Aim achieved, and PvPers get to use their deposits as they wish
Edit: For the master thief structure the same principle applies - if gold hits are taxed then that single miracle hit on a 4 million gold player earns the guild a cool million or so gold - good for nearly a day's upkeep on its own, not including regular gold hits.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users

