To be fair, all screenshots of someones personal gameplay experiences can prove, is what happened in their personal gameplay experience. One thing that remains true in any economy like that is that the cost to gain ratio will not be the same for all people involved. So we have to factor in that what one person can do, does not reflect what all people can do. Hence, why some folks would have a certain gain to loss problem that others do not.
Then factor in that when many players looked to replenish their gear, they may have only looked at stuff similar to what they liked to use. They may not even have been aware that they could have made gear of similar power had they simply looked at different types of loadouts. Which then leads us to the whole part about players wanting a system that lets them earn what they wanted, as opposed to earning what happens to be available at the time.
I do not mean to be callous about it, there just isn't any way to get around that it was built in a way that didn't please a lot of people. We can pull out specific situations, we can argue that had a certain players simply done X, or simply accepted Y, then maybe they would have had a different experience. But, at the end of it all, the system was built to function a certain way that required a certain set of preferences to enjoy it. I understand why some folks liked it, I understand why some folks didn't like it. It is primarily a matter of preference in how an economic model works.
Before I can explore that possibility, I have to re-frame that question a bit.
I'm not sure that you meant to imply it but it is not fair to equate preference with patience in the context of this conversation.
That said, you are in luck, the above mentioned features tend to be well received. If the many successful shooter games that have incorporated RPG elements and/or progression systems are any indication, tons of shooter players are more than fine with choosing gear and earning currency. Firefall had those things long before the 6.0 patch, and there was no controversy surrounding them. It is clear that those weren't the mechanics that became a big point of contention among the community, it was a particular economic model. So then, if you're suggesting that you can make a full on crafter heaven economic model that only requires the actioner heaven player to do those basic things, then you may be on to something.
The proposal could use some refinements but I see where you're going with it. Something along those lines should function in a game just fine hypothetically. What leaves me uncertain is whether it would offer enough of the min/maxing and stat tweaking that the more extreme crafter fans crave. That is hard to say. Moreover, there is a niche of people who like a market that has true shifting availability. Such a mechanic, if done to a relevant degree, is just plain contrary to a quick-replace system. As one direction requires that sometimes certain things just aren't anywhere, while the other direction requires that everything is always somewhere. It is why I remain unconvinced that a true crafter heaven economy can exist alongside a true actioner heaven system. I do love trying to figure that out for fun though!
If by revolutionary you mean the first game to achieve both crafter heaven and actioner heaven simultaneously, maybe. But there is still uncertainty on that. What I do not follow though, is where does your assertion that such an economic model makes the game less costly to develop in money/manpower?
Then factor in that when many players looked to replenish their gear, they may have only looked at stuff similar to what they liked to use. They may not even have been aware that they could have made gear of similar power had they simply looked at different types of loadouts. Which then leads us to the whole part about players wanting a system that lets them earn what they wanted, as opposed to earning what happens to be available at the time.
I do not mean to be callous about it, there just isn't any way to get around that it was built in a way that didn't please a lot of people. We can pull out specific situations, we can argue that had a certain players simply done X, or simply accepted Y, then maybe they would have had a different experience. But, at the end of it all, the system was built to function a certain way that required a certain set of preferences to enjoy it. I understand why some folks liked it, I understand why some folks didn't like it. It is primarily a matter of preference in how an economic model works.
Before I can explore that possibility, I have to re-frame that question a bit.
I'm not sure that you meant to imply it but it is not fair to equate preference with patience in the context of this conversation.
That said, you are in luck, the above mentioned features tend to be well received. If the many successful shooter games that have incorporated RPG elements and/or progression systems are any indication, tons of shooter players are more than fine with choosing gear and earning currency. Firefall had those things long before the 6.0 patch, and there was no controversy surrounding them. It is clear that those weren't the mechanics that became a big point of contention among the community, it was a particular economic model. So then, if you're suggesting that you can make a full on crafter heaven economic model that only requires the actioner heaven player to do those basic things, then you may be on to something.
The proposal could use some refinements but I see where you're going with it. Something along those lines should function in a game just fine hypothetically. What leaves me uncertain is whether it would offer enough of the min/maxing and stat tweaking that the more extreme crafter fans crave. That is hard to say. Moreover, there is a niche of people who like a market that has true shifting availability. Such a mechanic, if done to a relevant degree, is just plain contrary to a quick-replace system. As one direction requires that sometimes certain things just aren't anywhere, while the other direction requires that everything is always somewhere. It is why I remain unconvinced that a true crafter heaven economy can exist alongside a true actioner heaven system. I do love trying to figure that out for fun though!
If by revolutionary you mean the first game to achieve both crafter heaven and actioner heaven simultaneously, maybe. But there is still uncertainty on that. What I do not follow though, is where does your assertion that such an economic model makes the game less costly to develop in money/manpower?