Simpler to just use mats for cash and not allow flipping in the market (AH). If you don't allow someone to buy up all of a certain mat and relist it at a higher price (flipping) you've solved 90% of the issues that can plague an AH. And it won't really hurt crafters at all.
The only real issue there is you have to have a large enough player base to keep the crafters supplied.
Gold farmers just exacerbate an issue that already gets pretty bad without help.
The only real issue there is you have to have a large enough player base to keep the crafters supplied.
Gold farmers just exacerbate an issue that already gets pretty bad without help.
You can delete it, but don't do it - be a man! 
Still, pretty good discussion took place after that so it's all good
Still, pretty good discussion took place after that so it's all good
OP: Yes please I likes my moneys. What if the resource gathering is just something half the players don't really enjoy or get bored with. What would they have to continue on? Cold cash that's what.
Currency can be removed from the game through buy back schemes, or events. War funding type events *ahem*. Think every holiday a vender pops up and there is stuff to buy, temp costumes fireworks, other stuff people like to use to bullshit around with eachother. A sink doesn't necessary have to revolve entirely around game mechanics to remove the stuff. Lots and lots of fun ways just have to storm them up.
Currency can be removed from the game through buy back schemes, or events. War funding type events *ahem*. Think every holiday a vender pops up and there is stuff to buy, temp costumes fireworks, other stuff people like to use to bullshit around with eachother. A sink doesn't necessary have to revolve entirely around game mechanics to remove the stuff. Lots and lots of fun ways just have to storm them up.
I firmly believe as some would say is a fixed price model. The more of one item increases value by a percentage of availability. For example if a market has an item whose base value is 100 credits. and there are 1000 items with a player number of 4000. the availability of that is 1/4 the population.
Lets say that 25% is the highest and lowest an item would be. and lets say that 25% of the population is the lowest and 75% is the highest.
1000 items for 4000 players makes the item only available to 25% of the players, meaning that 75% (our 75% mark) of the population cannot purchase this on the market. The price of the item would be 125 (25% of 100 is 25) rather than 100 due to the items rarity.
3000 of that same item would be the opposite of our price model. since availability of the item is 75% the cost of the item would be 75 rather than 100 due to how common the item is. Below the threshold you add, above you subtract.
Keep in mind this is merely a concept or example of fixed market. This also prevents Gold Sellers and Botters from causing market inflation.
The market in turn would always be changing based on the amount of players buying and selling items. Over a period of Years the games market will always be the same and no player will have an advantage over another based on the price of an item.
Thats just my 2 cents.
Lets say that 25% is the highest and lowest an item would be. and lets say that 25% of the population is the lowest and 75% is the highest.
1000 items for 4000 players makes the item only available to 25% of the players, meaning that 75% (our 75% mark) of the population cannot purchase this on the market. The price of the item would be 125 (25% of 100 is 25) rather than 100 due to the items rarity.
3000 of that same item would be the opposite of our price model. since availability of the item is 75% the cost of the item would be 75 rather than 100 due to how common the item is. Below the threshold you add, above you subtract.
Keep in mind this is merely a concept or example of fixed market. This also prevents Gold Sellers and Botters from causing market inflation.
The market in turn would always be changing based on the amount of players buying and selling items. Over a period of Years the games market will always be the same and no player will have an advantage over another based on the price of an item.
Thats just my 2 cents.
Really nice to have a common currency in game. When I think of a purely barter system it brings me back to diablo 2 where sojs were the currency. It was nice to be able to trade for specific perfect items. Fun system but took inventory space and essentially just had to carry the sojs to trade. Really like barter systems, one item always ends up in hot demand.
If the stats dont vary like in FF then the market is nice for the most part. Although should be able to lower the sell value at no cost (so people dont undercut by 1 credit on a 99k item).
Sink. Why not release seasonal/holiday items requiring the main currency but rather than price it at 5,000 credits have it priced at 1% of credits in the game at the time of purchase. OFC %'s would need to drop as people may become inactive.
If the stats dont vary like in FF then the market is nice for the most part. Although should be able to lower the sell value at no cost (so people dont undercut by 1 credit on a 99k item).
Sink. Why not release seasonal/holiday items requiring the main currency but rather than price it at 5,000 credits have it priced at 1% of credits in the game at the time of purchase. OFC %'s would need to drop as people may become inactive.
I dislike fixed markets. I believe it is not only possible, but easy, to prevent the market from becoming a PvP playground or a gold farmer's dream.
All you have to do is tag each item that comes from the market and keep tagged items from being put back on the market. This prevents players from buying items a seller has priced low and relisting them for a higher price. It also prevents buying up all the stocks of one item and taking control of one sector of the market that way.
All you have to do is tag each item that comes from the market and keep tagged items from being put back on the market. This prevents players from buying items a seller has priced low and relisting them for a higher price. It also prevents buying up all the stocks of one item and taking control of one sector of the market that way.
Likes:
Cadbane and Adrian
So if im selling weapon x i would list it as
(__ material a) or (__ material b) or (__ material c) or (__ material a and __ material b) ... etc?
I think a higher demanded material will always come on top.. so why not just have a high demand currency
__ material a -> currency -> item
item -> currency -> __ material a
Dont need to keep currency on your account and can instantly trade it off for whatever you want, makes it easier to program the marketplace with a common currency, just need good sinks to keep hyper inflation out
(__ material a) or (__ material b) or (__ material c) or (__ material a and __ material b) ... etc?
I think a higher demanded material will always come on top.. so why not just have a high demand currency
__ material a -> currency -> item
item -> currency -> __ material a
Dont need to keep currency on your account and can instantly trade it off for whatever you want, makes it easier to program the marketplace with a common currency, just need good sinks to keep hyper inflation out
If I were designing the market I'd force the listing as X <rare name> Y <uncommon name> Z <common name> just to keep it from being too unwieldy.
Yes, unless the crafting system is perfectly designed some mats will be in higher demand for crafting. Which is why I'd have vendors simply take R/U/C mats rather than specifying which R/U/C, so the player won't get stuck with 20 million McGuffinite while every crafter is demanding Unobtanium on the market.
And the crafting mats are a defacto currency regardless of whether a fiat currency exists or not. A fiat currency may be simpler, but is also more prone to inflation since there is less to consume it, and drops will be exchanged for fiat currency. There's a reason that RL currencies should be tied to a physical standard such as precious metals. I'd love to see this tried in a game universe as well.
Yes, unless the crafting system is perfectly designed some mats will be in higher demand for crafting. Which is why I'd have vendors simply take R/U/C mats rather than specifying which R/U/C, so the player won't get stuck with 20 million McGuffinite while every crafter is demanding Unobtanium on the market.
And the crafting mats are a defacto currency regardless of whether a fiat currency exists or not. A fiat currency may be simpler, but is also more prone to inflation since there is less to consume it, and drops will be exchanged for fiat currency. There's a reason that RL currencies should be tied to a physical standard such as precious metals. I'd love to see this tried in a game universe as well.
So all crafting materials exchange at the same rate? Why bother having multiple crafting mats then if you can exchange them all 1:1
edit : Think ember is only going to drop crafting materials and not actual gear. So the prices on the market would be determined by the crafters.. I mod'd the market in firefall to show me the current costs of crafting materials so I would know if it was better to buy or craft things and what to list items at
edit : Think ember is only going to drop crafting materials and not actual gear. So the prices on the market would be determined by the crafters.. I mod'd the market in firefall to show me the current costs of crafting materials so I would know if it was better to buy or craft things and what to list items at
Last edited:
Maybe I didn't expound on this earlier in the thread.
I'd have vendors "buy" R/U/C mats for a value of $10/$5/$1 credit for offworld goods. Everything made locally will be purchased with refined mats. The seller in the AH can specify a number of one type of Rare material, and a number of one type of Uncommon material, and a number of one type of Common material.
Some Rare mat will be in higher demand locally. I have never seen a crafting system where all Rare mats were used equally. The vendors accepting any Rare as a Rare reflects the more diversified demand from offworld as well as consuming excess of the less used materials. Same for Uncommon and Common.
Edit:
Just to clarify, I did not intend for people to think that a vendor could exchange 1 of Rare A for 1 of Rare B. The sole role the vendor would fill is to be our broker for offworld goods.
I'd have vendors "buy" R/U/C mats for a value of $10/$5/$1 credit for offworld goods. Everything made locally will be purchased with refined mats. The seller in the AH can specify a number of one type of Rare material, and a number of one type of Uncommon material, and a number of one type of Common material.
Some Rare mat will be in higher demand locally. I have never seen a crafting system where all Rare mats were used equally. The vendors accepting any Rare as a Rare reflects the more diversified demand from offworld as well as consuming excess of the less used materials. Same for Uncommon and Common.
Edit:
Just to clarify, I did not intend for people to think that a vendor could exchange 1 of Rare A for 1 of Rare B. The sole role the vendor would fill is to be our broker for offworld goods.
Now if you want to talk about the market like that the focus of the conversation will change.
Players create fluctuations in price by manipulating price and availability of goods. Crafting mats are what is most commonly manipulated, but if there are key pieces of gear for given level ranges they'll get manipulated too.
The most common form of manipulation is flipping. Find something, buy all of it, relist all of it at a higher price. When you control the supply you can set whatever price you like. This is why monopolies are illegal IRL. The solution here is twofold. In the first place, if you make crafting mats the currency, flippers can not corner the market on them because they aren't ON the market. The second part is to simply flag every item that is bought on the market, then not allow flagged items to be listed.
Between these two controls you can let the market find its own level. Actually, only one of them is a control, the other is a removal of a middleman.
Edit: Added last sentence.
Players create fluctuations in price by manipulating price and availability of goods. Crafting mats are what is most commonly manipulated, but if there are key pieces of gear for given level ranges they'll get manipulated too.
The most common form of manipulation is flipping. Find something, buy all of it, relist all of it at a higher price. When you control the supply you can set whatever price you like. This is why monopolies are illegal IRL. The solution here is twofold. In the first place, if you make crafting mats the currency, flippers can not corner the market on them because they aren't ON the market. The second part is to simply flag every item that is bought on the market, then not allow flagged items to be listed.
Between these two controls you can let the market find its own level. Actually, only one of them is a control, the other is a removal of a middleman.
Edit: Added last sentence.
Rate of removal from the system.
With a singular currency you need to keep inventing ways, and trying to incentivize the use of those ways, to burn the currency out of peoples pockets.
Using the crafting materials themselves as the currency means they get burned out of the system naturally. People will always be crafting something, hunting materials to make their dream build, or hunting for materials to make a build to see if it would work.
So in this selling the materials to vendors gets you offworld goods that would otherwise cost credits, buying and selling materials with other players means those materials leave the market because a person was looking for those materials to use them to make something.
With a singular currency the only natural removal of the currency is through vendors or taxes on the market. Vendors wont always be selling things that players want to buy often. Sales tax on the market does little to stop inflation since money is infinitely generated.
With a singular currency you need to keep inventing ways, and trying to incentivize the use of those ways, to burn the currency out of peoples pockets.
Using the crafting materials themselves as the currency means they get burned out of the system naturally. People will always be crafting something, hunting materials to make their dream build, or hunting for materials to make a build to see if it would work.
So in this selling the materials to vendors gets you offworld goods that would otherwise cost credits, buying and selling materials with other players means those materials leave the market because a person was looking for those materials to use them to make something.
With a singular currency the only natural removal of the currency is through vendors or taxes on the market. Vendors wont always be selling things that players want to buy often. Sales tax on the market does little to stop inflation since money is infinitely generated.
So having a vendor exchange them at a variable exchange rate would be better?
If the only gear going on the market is from crafting people would likely undercut the manipulators and the manipulation would end up just costing them. Flipping something sold undervalue isn't necessarily a bad thing, someone desperate to sell at a low price is fine in a market.
Really not sure what this is getting towards, done bumping this thread. I'm for a single currency.
If the only gear going on the market is from crafting people would likely undercut the manipulators and the manipulation would end up just costing them. Flipping something sold undervalue isn't necessarily a bad thing, someone desperate to sell at a low price is fine in a market.
Really not sure what this is getting towards, done bumping this thread. I'm for a single currency.