Using Ingame Content to Create Endgame Gold Sinks

Fading · July 2016

Sylviette wrote: »

I know I said I gave up on explaining before, but seeing people using terms without understanding what that means just irk me so much.
Here's another attemp:

You have an essential item everyone need in game, and you want to figure out how to make the best use of that:
1. You choose to allow people to craft it with a small fee of 5g, and it won't be in the store.
Good: the players then would have to spend time gathering/crafting, thus making them spend more time in game.
Bad : players only sink 5g for each items. Practically nothing.
2. You choose to put them in the store for 100g each, and it won't be craftable.
Good: player now sink 100g for each items, 20 times more effective than the previous choice.
Bad : players don't get to spend time gathering/crafting, thus making them spend less time in game.
3. You choose to put them in the store for 100g each, and also let them craftable for 5g.
Good: players can choose to spend more time or sink more gold.
Bad : in reality they will only pick one and abandon the other (happening in game right now in case of crit scroll being both craftable and sold in merchant store). It's either 1, or 2.
4. You choose to remove them from the game.
Bye bye players.
5. You give them out for free anywhere anytime.
Why are we talking about this again ?

Not saying there're problem with your enthusiastic, but if you want to give suggestion it's better if you understand more about what you're talking about. Someone shouting "HEY WE NEED A GOLD SINK" might contribute more than someone suggesting "let's make a gold sink by raising the price of firewood and campfire to 10000000g each".

No one is saying that the craftable items should be 5g. The gold sink part would come into play when you're speaking of multi items needed from an NPC shop in order to craft the item combined with the time it takes to farm the materials. Say you needed 50 of a certain farmable and a special refiner purchased from an NPC in order to craft the parchment or ink used in crafting scrolls. Now you have the time consumption and the gold sink. Using a tiered crafting system allows for multiple gold sinks due to specialty items needing to be purchased in order to reach the end result. As well as the time required to farm the needed materials helping to extend the players in game time.

Simple tricks like these are used in most rpgs on the market to keep inflation down and artificially extend content. You keep thinking that I'm not understanding what I'm saying, but I feel like you're just dead set on having items purchasable from NPC's as another option, when in fact, putting items such as crit scrolls and such in a direct purchase NPC only succeeds in gutting other parts of the game. Crafting is almost completely worthless at this point. Even though certain crafting professions have not been viable from the launch of the game, they are still part of the game and easier to tweak than having to come up with a whole new system from scratch and implement it instead

TheGreyWolf · July 2016

Sylviette wrote: »

I know I said I gave up on explaining before, but seeing people using terms without understanding what that means just irk me so much.
Here's another attemp:

You have an essential item everyone need in game, and you want to figure out how to make the best use of that:
1. You choose to allow people to craft it with a small fee of 5g, and it won't be in the store.
Good: the players then would have to spend time gathering/crafting, thus making them spend more time in game.
Bad : players only sink 5g for each items. Practically nothing.
2. You choose to put them in the store for 100g each, and it won't be craftable.
Good: player now sink 100g for each items, 20 times more effective than the previous choice.
Bad : players don't get to spend time gathering/crafting, thus making them spend less time in game.
3. You choose to put them in the store for 100g each, and also let them craftable for 5g.
Good: players can choose to spend more time or sink more gold.
Bad : in reality they will only pick one and abandon the other (happening in game right now in case of crit scroll being both craftable and sold in merchant store). It's either 1, or 2.
4. You choose to remove them from the game.
Bye bye players.
5. You give them out for free anywhere anytime.
Why are we talking about this again ?

Not saying there're problem with your enthusiastic, but if you want to give suggestion it's better if you understand more about what you're talking about. Someone shouting "HEY WE NEED A GOLD SINK" might contribute more than someone suggesting "let's make a gold sink by raising the price of firewood and campfire to 10000000g each".

I'm not sure who this is directed to...? I know what a gold sink is. A gold sink is something that takes gold out of circulation by destroying it, not by transferring it to other players. My ideas are to implement or improve side activities that take gold out of the game. Example: make crafting viable. Crafting takes some money out of the game by requiring players to buy crafting mats from NPCs (thus "sinking gold"). Enchanting doesn't count as a gold sink because that's just transferring money from one player to another. Another example: add player housing, and either charge "rent" (gold taken out of the game) or have NPCs sell housing improvements for gold. I also had an idea for a Castanica Casino but most players are probably already tired of RNG, so that idea may be dead in the water.

Increasing the prices on campfires and firewood would be useless because #1 campfires already drop from mobs and #2 the whole stamina system is being removed anyway.

I'm not suggesting removing items from the game. I'm suggesting adding more items, and making them cost money (either in-game gold or cash shop). I don't like the other ideas that revolve around increasing broker fees because that to me sounds a lot like "raising taxes" without improving services, and that's almost always universally unpopular.

Sylviette · July 2016

@greywolve : I didnt direct that at you, eventhough you seems to miss my point anyway. I'm not against implementing more activities into the game, but people should do that with specific goals in mind instead of grouping every problem together and try to make a perfect solution to everything.

@Fading : We're talking about essential items here. If you make them too hard to obtain (ex, like you said, make them take a long time to gather/craft AND cost a lot of money) it would be the same as option 4, most normal players will just stay away from them (think, etching) thus there's no point implementing it. If it's just luxury then I have no problem with your method; however, again, only a small portion of players will take part in (ex, the current dyad system where you need both time and money invested for a minor advantage).

I prefer to think in term of "what problem we should take care of, and which ingame feature can be use to do that" instead of "which feature we should change, and how can we make it work toward the problems". It's backward thinking right there.

Fading · July 2016

Sylviette wrote: »

@greywolve : I didnt direct that at you, eventhough you seems to miss my point anyway. I'm not against implementing more activities into the game, but people should do that with specific goals in mind instead of grouping every problem together and try to make a perfect solution to everything.

@Fading : We're talking about essential items here. If you make them too hard to obtain (ex, like you said, make them take a long time to gather/craft AND cost a lot of money) it would be the same as option 4, most normal players will just stay away from them (think, etching) thus there's no point implementing it. If it's just luxury then I have no problem with your method; however, again, only a small portion of players will take part in (ex, the current dyad system where you need both time and money invested for a minor advantage).

I prefer to think in term of "what problem we should take care of, and which ingame feature can be use to do that" instead of "which feature we should change, and how can we make it work toward the problems". It's backward thinking right there.

No one said it should take a lot of money or a lot of time, but these two elements together would accomplish more towards solving the inflation problem we have now. Players will always need scrolls/pots and other items. This way crafting/farming becomes a viable again and a MINOR gold sink is created. I'm not trying to solve the inflation as a whole with 1 simple idea, but I feel like using something already implemented in the game, such as crafting, can help to put a minor dent in the problem.:awesome:

I'm pretty sure we are on the same page when it comes to solutions to the problems. What you said, "I prefer to think in term of "what problem we should take care of, and which ingame feature can be use to do that" instead of "which feature we should change, and how can we make it work toward the problems". It's backward thinking right there." Is pretty much the same thing. Maybe the context of your statement is lost in text form, but I honestly can't see a difference in what you're saying and my suggestion. Backwards thinking isn't always a bad thing if you take into account that elements that were implemented later in the game led to the current problems we have.

Also it seems you just keep pointing out that we are wrong without giving any suggestions to how you would actually solve the issues we are discussing. Maybe it would be easier to see your point of view if you had a suggestion of how you would fix the problem yourself, instead of saying that our's are so flawed.

Sylviette · July 2016

There're a pretty big difference between the 2 ideas.

The former means "solving the problems" comes first, and you can pick among the current features to make the change that works best. Example, you have problem with dungeons being too hard and unrewarding, thus you pick "changing loot" feature or "nerf dungeons" feature, instead of "improving crafting" feature. Yes, crafting might stay dead, but the problem is solved and it's what matter.

On the other hand, the later means you pick a feature and try to bend it into solving the problem, doesn't matter if it's effective or not.
Example, you need to change crafting because it's dead, and you have problem with dungeons being too hard and unrewarding. If you stick with "change crafting" first, there's no relevant change that can address the current problems (aside from creating a +138956365% dmg potion as craftable consumable). That's why backward thinking is not prefered in most case.

Back to the topic, your idea only works if Tera had already had a staple number gold sinks, giving up a few of them to revitalize crafting would not be too bad; however it's not the case here. Minor gold sink means nothing when you need big ones on pair with the current inflation, and that's what should be focused instead. If you want to make crafting alive again without effecting economy, push it toward the luxury/cosmetic zone instead, for they share the same element of improving QoL outside of the main gameplay features which is what you're trying to do to - having more thing to do outside of dungeons and battleground.

metagame · July 2016

make an npc that offers instanced world boss spawns for 10k apiece

the area could be entered by you, or anyone in your raid, and would count for everyone after the leader pays. if 20 people split the price for one spawn, it would cost 500g apiece. it isn't much, but each one of those people would be removing gold from the game, and the low price may encourage them to buy multiple at a time.

people may think something like this would ruin world boss hunting, but if players were more interested in buying their kills, less people would be actively hunting the normal ones, making less competition for them.

e: now pretty irrelevant since wb achives will be lowered to 1 kill each lol, maybe bump the price to 100k or something

TheGreyWolf · July 2016

Sylviette wrote: »

@greywolve : I didnt direct that at you, eventhough you seems to miss my point anyway. I'm not against implementing more activities into the game, but people should do that with specific goals in mind instead of grouping every problem together and try to make a perfect solution to everything.

Fair enough, and I think it's safe to say that there's no such thing as a perfect solution. I'm certainly not saying we should make ordinary / necessary items harder to obtain. I think the best solution is to offer a greater variety of options of things for players to do, and to also include a gold sink aspect to them. I really don't see how they could implement a HUGE gold sink without making it optional and worthwhile... if you just outright take large sums of gold away from players without giving them anything good in return, that would just anger most people.

Dingamma · July 2016

This would not be likely to code into the game at this point, but suppose you could use the market value equivalent to enchant/roll gear. So instead of spending X gold to buy a semi-enigmatic scroll/feedstock/spellbind from another player, I spend X gold on an NPC that lets me reroll /enchant an item, and what this NPC charges adusts based on the exchange history on the trading post.

Fading · July 2016

Sylviette wrote: »

There're a pretty big difference between the 2 ideas.

The former means "solving the problems" comes first, and you can pick among the current features to make the change that works best. Example, you have problem with dungeons being too hard and unrewarding, thus you pick "changing loot" feature or "nerf dungeons" feature, instead of "improving crafting" feature. Yes, crafting might stay dead, but the problem is solved and it's what matter.

On the other hand, the later means you pick a feature and try to bend it into solving the problem, doesn't matter if it's effective or not.
Example, you need to change crafting because it's dead, and you have problem with dungeons being too hard and unrewarding. If you stick with "change crafting" first, there's no relevant change that can address the current problems (aside from creating a +138956365% dmg potion as craftable consumable). That's why backward thinking is not prefered in most case.

Back to the topic, your idea only works if Tera had already had a staple number gold sinks, giving up a few of them to revitalize crafting would not be too bad; however it's not the case here. Minor gold sink means nothing when you need big ones on pair with the current inflation, and that's what should be focused instead. If you want to make crafting alive again without effecting economy, push it toward the luxury/cosmetic zone instead, for they share the same element of improving QoL outside of the main gameplay features which is what you're trying to do to - having more thing to do outside of dungeons and battleground.

So instead you suggest that what? We just implement something that wipes out MILLIONS of gold from players at once?

What I'm suggesting is different ways to make small little impacts in inflation and over time these will add up! You can't make a drastic change to the economy overnight and I'm simply trying to find ideas that would help to rein in the current inflation and over time keep a check on it, while giving players other options besides just doing the same mindless grind cycle we currently have.

I'm pretty sure that your idea of "backwards thinking" doesn't even remotely cover any of my suggested ideas. Crafting is and will be in Tera for a long time, so how is utilizing a current staple of the game as a gold sink backwards thinking? Or for that matter adding some of my other ideas into the game?

I'm exhausted with this repetitive argument. Again give some examples of what you would do to control inflation, prolong players satisfaction with the overall gameplay experience, and help to infuse a currently dying crafting system with much needed support. Or hell idk, get original and come up with some great ideas of your own. That would be awesome as well! :awesome:

Also you said,

Sylviette wrote: »

There're a pretty big difference between the 2 ideas.

The former means "solving the problems" comes first, and you can pick among the current features to make the change that works best. Example, you have problem with dungeons being too hard and unrewarding, thus you pick "changing loot" feature or "nerf dungeons" feature, instead of "improving crafting" feature. Yes, crafting might stay dead, but the problem is solved and it's what matter.

On the other hand, the later means you pick a feature and try to bend it into solving the problem, doesn't matter if it's effective or not.
Example, you need to change crafting because it's dead, and you have problem with dungeons being too hard and unrewarding. If you stick with "change crafting" first, there's no relevant change that can address the current problems (aside from creating a +138956365% dmg potion as craftable consumable). That's why backward thinking is not prefered in most case.

Back to the topic, your idea only works if Tera had already had a staple number gold sinks, giving up a few of them to revitalize crafting would not be too bad; however it's not the case here. Minor gold sink means nothing when you need big ones on pair with the current inflation, and that's what should be focused instead. If you want to make crafting alive again without effecting economy, push it toward the luxury/cosmetic zone instead, for they share the same element of improving QoL outside of the main gameplay features which is what you're trying to do to - having more thing to do outside of dungeons and battleground.

Nothing about this discussion involves solving problems such as dungeons being too hard. Solving a difficulty level on a dungeon is apples to oranges different! It has nothing to do with inflation at all. I think you should try to come up with a better example that actually applies to the current topic.

Fading

Sedenna · July 2016

Gear repair kill one of my favorite game (no name) because repair gear costed more then drop from dungeons. Really bad idea.

Fading · July 2016

Yes but we are not speaking of something that's going to cost thousands of gold here or have to be done very often. Something as simple as max repair cost is 50 gold per piece of armor, so even for all four armor and the weapon your only talking about 250 gold. Also the degrade is something as little as .25% per hour cumulative. So 4 hrs of play for 1% of degrade. Not a game killer but just a little gold burned over a normal months play time.

Sylviette · July 2016

First I explained why you idea won't work with direct example and numbers, and you said little details don't matter.
Then I omitted the small details and explained using general term "backward thinking", and you misunderstood it completely.
Then I explained it again but using a different example from what I used to help you understand it, and now you said the example didn't match the detail of what you were saying, and tell me to give direct example which you said doesn't matter just a few posts before.
Can you see who's pulling the repetitive argument here ?

Yes, we can wipe millions of gold from players at once, and they will be more than willing to spend it. Smartdyads/cosmetic/mounts/pets...
There're already a lot of good suggestions for gold sinks, but all this time you just dead set focused in how to make crafting this and that, while nobody cares.

Using Ingame Content to Create Endgame Gold Sinks

Comments