Small portion of recirculated funds to each premium character

[whykillme 1,621]

you mean those older players who are not contributing a cent anymore and are against everything that's bad for them even if it will improve the game? yea it's really crucial to have them here

You talking about the part where i pay for 6 accounts 80 euros per year? or the part where i was not contributing a cent anymore? 

[Sobotnik 365]

so why are people allowed to keep traders locked up on deed in houses again

[Archaed 2,280]

This is what everyone who earns money by draining traders say.

And no, I don't feel that I'm "owed" anything, what I do feel is that I have a say in where the money I pay into the game goes since as for now they ARE recirculated back into it. Why should the ones draining traders as a source of income be the only ones with a valid opinion in the matter?

[Aeris 3,759]

so why are people allowed to keep traders locked up on deed in houses again

Edited July 30, 2014 by Aeris

[Othob Rithol 700]

Let's try to get past "Trader drainers are/are not bad people".

 

It's a pointless argument, especially when we seem to be in agreement that as a game mechanic they are broken.

[Lucas 66]

There's no need to remove the traders at all... who's going to sell uncraftable items such as rods, forms, contracts?

 

I think this could be fixed by removing their ability to buy / sell craftable items and establishing a fixed amount of silver they contribute to the unkeep. 

Edited July 30, 2014 by Lucas

[bdew 2,462]

TBH I would prefer an in game currency that is separate from RMT. But the chances of that happening are nil.

 

I'm not sure about this suggestion, My gut instinct is that any amount that will be split to every prem account will be too small to be significant to a single player while not leading to rampant inflation.

 

But there needs to be some form of money influx outside RMT or the opposite will happen and we'll have deflation.

 

I think a form of distribution that is tied to gameplay but not in a way where a few players can control all the money would be good, but i don't have any actual ideas 

[Steeloxide 146]

“Too many people spend money they haven't earned, to buy things they don't want, to impress people that they don't like.â€
― Will Rogers

“The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.â€
― Franklin D. Roosevelt

Edited July 30, 2014 by Steeloxide

[Leroy 315]

not that far from rl

 

on one side you have the taxes like upkeep, contract costs, money sink items, merchant fees - and on the other side you would have a salary. But if in rl you have the state that collects taxes and an emplyer that pays salary, here the 2 would be the same.

 

I like it +1

actually current system is more RL than anything else. You have the state collecting taxes, those that work to earn their silvers... those who invest RL money into the game to buy premium and loose in the long haul and then those who invested RL money into a trader(s) and win in the long run by making dividends on investment.  What you just suggested is paramount to a state run economy where taxes are salary of the populous, trouble is you may as well simply rid of the taxes and call it a day.

 

and on the OP, regarding all premium receive a %... im all for that as long as I can be a villager in your village and not give you MY FAIR SHARE

 

 

Money redistribution is tricky both IRL and Wurm. Not everything is able to be equal or fair when opinions and situations are not exactly the same.

[Baloo 709]

It is somewhat frustrating to have a trader and nearby a merchant, both selling 3 x magic chests and 3 x transforming rods at huge prices, then not being able to sell them a single low ql ring for example, as "low on funds atm".  This is at Newspring btw.

 

Something definitely needs to be done to improve circulation of currency and I like this idea, so +1

[Elen 1,013]

+/- better than nothing

[Othob Rithol 700]

actually current system is more RL than anything else. You have the state collecting taxes, those that work to earn their silvers... those who invest RL money into the game to buy premium and loose in the long haul and then those who invested RL money into a trader(s) and win in the long run by making dividends on investment.  What you just suggested is paramount to a state run economy where taxes are salary of the populous, trouble is you may as well simply rid of the taxes and call it a day.

 

and on the OP, regarding all premium receive a %... im all for that as long as I can be a villager in your village and not give you MY FAIR SHARE

 

Edited July 30, 2014 by Othob Rithol

[Mordraug 2,542]

You talking about the part where i pay for 6 accounts 80 euros per year? or the part where i was not contributing a cent anymore? 

 

If you meant "80 euros per month" then dang.

 

80 euros per year for 6 accounts... i pay 120 for one as do most of us.

 

Which just tilted my vote to +1

[Biervampyr 97]

I like the idea of distribution to all people.

But just for some people who are talking that traders are no moneymaking machine.

1st trader 50s - you get them back after 10 months

Form that you can buy a new trader. Now you just need 5 months for the next.

After 5 months you can buy the next one now it just need 3 months for next...

So as you can see after around 2 years you can nearly obtain enough for 4 traders and than you can play nearly for free.

I dont want to say iam against or deleate all traders. Just want to make clear that traders are a money making machine!!

[KaiH 1,126]

.... Just want to make clear that traders are a money making machine!!

[Forgedrake 130]

+1 taking a % of the kings coffers would be allot nicer then a yellow potion a month - except instead of it going to any premium - going to premiums who paid with money - this would stop 10S getting refunded - would make buying wurm with cash more beneficial and the people paying with silver would still be able to play free but the paid members wouldn't feel like they are paying for the high levels who pay with coins and already sell them for RL cash as is

 

of course now everyone who pays silver per month is gonna flame me and thus we will know who buys wurm with coins and cash :}

[Ecrir 887]

except instead of it going to any premium - going to premiums who paid with money - this would stop 10S getting refunded - would make buying wurm with cash more beneficial and the people paying with silver would still be able to play free but the paid members wouldn't feel like they are paying for the high levels who pay with coins and already sell them for RL cash as is

 

of course now everyone who pays silver per month is gonna flame me and thus we will know who buys wurm with coins and cash :}

[Othob Rithol 700]

I don't think there is much point in segregating based on which currency was used. Both drive the company income since almost all silver originated in the shop. If a player works in the game to buy premium, they shouldn't be denied the benefits. 

[blayze 314]

Big -1

So here is the problem. The majority of deed upkeep is payed by a select few people who own the deed and who usually put a lot of work into it. These deeds are funded by traders which allows them to be nearly self sustainable. The money from the deed upkeep is then put back into the traders and the cycle maintains its self.

If the money is distributed to all of the players then the cycle will break. So now not only do the deed owners have to build and maintain the deed, they have to also try and produce goods and compete with others just to put all profits into the upkeep. Then they watch that upkeep money go out to everyone else who is just sitting around doing nothing...

[Othob Rithol 700]

Not all deeds, not even the majority of them and probably not even a significant minority of them, are maintained by trader draining. The few that do rely on this mechanism are not just recovering their own upkeep. They recover theirs and others. And for this boon, they are the ones sitting and doing nothing.

Edited August 3, 2014 by Othob Rithol

[blayze 314]

That's not how it works on elevation. We maintain them using the economics title and know who gets what.

Also if the deed owners are not getting the money from the traders then they are having to put extra work in or even pay real life money to maintain the upkeep.

I do know about people having a crazy number of traders and farming money off of them. This just isn't the fix the system needs.

Why should people who are doing nothing receive a set paycheck while the deed owners are having to put out even more to maintain a deed?

One more thing the majority of the kings coffers comes from deed upkeep. Take away the ability to maintain the deeds and the system will fail

Edited August 3, 2014 by blayze

[Ecrir 887]

One more thing the majority of the kings coffers comes from deed upkeep. Take away the ability to maintain the deeds and the system will fail

 

You seem to assume that most of the money received by traders comes from deed upkeep. But conveniently you have no numbers to back that up. So while you bring it as a fact, it's nothing more than your own assumption until you bring those numbers to the table. Let me list a few other sources of money:

Merchant tax (they take a small part of each transaction).

Mailbox costs.

items bought from traders (talking about things like magic chests, etc. a part of that goes to the kings coffers too if I'm not mistaken)

Premium bought through silver.

 

Removing traders from the picture won't take away the ability to maintain deeds. I'm doing just fine maintaining my deeds every month without one, and so do the majority of deeds in Wurm. Xanadu is the perfect example as you can't buy traders there, just look how deeds exist there, so changing the recirculation of money as proposed won't take away the ability to maintain deeds, that's just bull.

 

Why should people who are doing nothing receive a set paycheck while the deed owners are having to put out even more to maintain a deed?

 

We can turn that one around too.

Why should people who bought a trader and then do nothing receive a monthly paycheck, while other deed owners have to work their asses off to maintain a deed? Why are people who bought traders entitled to effectively free deed upkeep, and potentially even free premium, at a minimum amount of effort to themselves? Why are they entitled to receive free monthly silver, which other people had to work their asses off to get, or had to spend RL money on? And before you attempt to counter it with a reason like "investment", that reason was already countered as such:

 

I don't want to wander into the notion that Trader-drainers are the scourge of Wurm or cheating somehow, but the concept of them as an investment is total nonsense. There is no such thing as an investment that has no risk and a perpetual payout, even if it is variable. Even further, payback times for any real 'investment' are not in periods of a single year.

 

The fact that you can game them to max out payout (a mechanism btw meant to curb abuse in this way - it was meant to prevent caged traders that are never used from being milked but was easily subverted) does not qualify as "intent" on the part of the developers. The use of a game device for a purpose other than it was designed for is not a legitimate basis for entitlement. Further, this has been a debated issue for years, so any claim of "but I didn't know, so I just assumed" is equally without merit. I'd cite the launch of Xanadu w/o trader draining and Rolf's own comments relating to the "sell" option as support for this being a recognized issue with the game.

Edited August 4, 2014 by Ecrir

[Rathgar 959]

That's not how it works on elevation. We maintain them using the economics title and know who gets what.

Also if the deed owners are not getting the money from the traders then they are having to put extra work in or even pay real life money to maintain the upkeep.

I do know about people having a crazy number of traders and farming money off of them. This just isn't the fix the system needs.

Why should people who are doing nothing receive a set paycheck while the deed owners are having to put out even more to maintain a deed?

One more thing the majority of the kings coffers comes from deed upkeep. Take away the ability to maintain the deeds and the system will fail

 

 

Its not people who are doing "nothing", its people who are paying premium, thus directly contributing to the game development.  While people holding merchants for some time already, can get "free money" to pay for their deeds and premium, and have stopped contributing to the game (monetarily).

 

Ill give you an example, I could have stopped paying anything for the SEVERAL deeds that I own, 1 year ago.   And if I was hardcore about Wurm, I could also pay my premium from it.   So, I could already have payed off my "investment", and I would from now be using a lot of resources, without actually contributing anything to the game.    Thats the part of the system that I resent.

 

The way the OP has developed this idea, those who contribute to the game, would get some return, and they could pay their deeds with it, for as long as they support the game.

[blayze 314]

You seem to assume that most of the money received by traders comes from deed upkeep. But conveniently you have no numbers to back that up.

 

Edited August 5, 2014 by blayze

[Etherdrifter 2,518]

-1

 

I think this is quite the wrong way to go about fixing a broken economy.

 

People are likely just to pump this gratis silver into deeds or more premium time.

 

The trouble is items on wurm have the value people set them, very few people will pay top silver for a rug whereas people will explode silver for a good weapon.  Throwing some more silver into the mix is not going to solve that.  The trickle of income from selling items at tokens is useful in that it allows free players to net some coppers and iron coins for cheap goods and has stimulated low level economy to some degree.  However making the elite even more elite is the wrong way to go.