AJBlack

How's The Current Market? - A Returning Player Question

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, Hailene said:

 

You're not making sense.  If I was harvesting 1000 crops per a harvest the price would be adjusted for that. You're not being nerfed.

 

 

You're competing with others. If everyone on the server was only getting 3 crops per a tile, guess what, prices for crops are going to sky rocket. You'd probably expect 2-3s/1k.

 

But you're competing with a person that can get at least 6 crop for 3 actions.

Anyway, I'm not going to waste my time trying to debate on what an action should or should not be with you. I just pointed out a couple of your errors in your previous post.

 

You know exactly what I'm saying. All you Vets vreated this Wurm Minimum wage standard then jump through hoops to consistently redefine it as it suites you. Then run to forums every couple of months and demand the Devs fix something that players control, the players created, and the players deliberating destroyed.

At 70 farming at 200 tiles I am committing the same amount of actions as aI was when I was 10 farming. Exactly the same. Do  not even pretend to try and tell me that because my yield went up Im spending less time in the feild, that the crops are seeding themselves and and jump out of the ground on their own. I am still committing to three actions per tile. Period.

Thats 3s per/k. Period.

 

You would accept your employer or customer in real life cutting your pay in half because you've become more productive? Being more productive as you gain skill doesn't mean less actions, it means better success rate and better quality, both of which are meant to increase your bottom line, not lower your Wurm minimum wage. You now have more to sell more often, and at better quality then the other guy. Why should i accept lower wages per tile just because I get better yield then Oi did a year ago? Why even bother skilling up anything, by that logic, if better skills equals lower pay? My deed is my asset. You are deliberating telling me I should accept lower returns per tile because Im getting better at what i do.

 

Do you seriously not see that as a total load of ######!!? Would accept that from your boss in real life if your pay was cut as you got better at you job?

 

Get going higher FC, I can wagons faster utilizing less recourse (less fails) and at higher ql levels. This means I can make more and better wagons in the same amount of time a newer player right at 40 can. That means I am overall increasing my sales rate. The wagon still has the same amount of actions to commit to. Even communists don't pay experienced and skilled workers less then a new unskilled worker at the same job.

The base rate for any item, the "Wurm Minimum Wage" is based solely on the number of actions committed. When skill from 10 to 70, the number of committed actions does not change, at all, ever. I still spend as much time in the field now as did before, committing to the same number of actions...well, actually even more now. Even though actions timers are shorter I now have to run to the FSB to unload more often, so Im still spending the same amount of time farming as I did when was 10 in skill.

 

And don't give me this crap about about competition. cost per action is a cost per action. If Im competing against a guy who can pull 10 crops per harvest and Im pulling three he gets to 1k a lot faster then I do and makes far more sales  then i do in the same time frame. If we both have 1k to sell at the same time, he has better quality then I do, which means he can charge even more then minimum wage and still sell his 1k before I do. He still committed to three actions per tile, just as I did, so no reason why is minimum  wage, his base cost, should go down. His price goes up, because he has better quality. How much he can have it go up depends on, wait for it, the competition. Seriously, I you feel your in completion at 80 skill against a guy at 10 skill, that's not a game problem, that's self esteem issue. That new bro ain't your competition. He's not even in the same ball park as you and your customer base that players with higher yields and higher ql's.

The only logical conclusion one can draw is you guys are deliberating and collectively trying to push out new players from the game, by deliberating redefining what you all yourselves defined as an action.

 

So you guys have set standard, that you all made and agreed upon yourselves, that you now wilfully and deliberately ignore in attempt to force out new players, yet continually demand that the Devs fix. Astonishing.

 

Personally, i think the idea of actions per is the wrong way to begin with. There's only two constants in Wurm. Only two finite resources. Land and token. Base prices, "Wurm Minimum Wage" should be based on that, because clearly you guys don't know, after all these years, if i can take your reaction at face value (which I can't . I unfathomable to believe you don't know know this), what an action is. You cant tell me farming is isn't even one action because someone has 100 skill. He still has to com iit to three actions,. period.

You can't tell me, if base cost is per action, that a barrel that takes 15 actions from resource collection to finished product is somehow only 5. The only way the Devs can fix this is they teach you all how to count. DO you all need a lesson in counting? Your current system, the one you deliberalty undermine, is what's broken. It actually punishes people for skilling up, as you saying their actions are now worth less as you get better.

 

I also completely eliminates co operation within a production line. it takes 15 actions to create a small barrel, not 5. By using 15 as the base, someone who is a carpenter can now afford to pay others to do the resource collection, as that price is is absorbed in the base price.By now stating, wrongly, that a barrel  5 actions, you forcing him to commit to several actions, not only himself, but at no charge. mining low end ore and mad making nails is something a new player could do. The fact you all decided to cut out the resource collection part of the actions show your true intentions with this system...and you wonder why new pwople don't stay. You have developed a system that you deliberate redefine to push them out of the production line, leaving them no place in the game...and this idea that even if they stick around and gain those high skills, they worth less then if they never prem'd and farmed at 20 cap'd, because, for reason by your logic, more skill equals less actions, although that is literally not true.

 

 

Edit:

This all stems from the argument that prices continually dropping is good for new players. New players are not purchaser, they are sellers (well much of the time they aren't even sellers, they are mostly labor int he larger endeavour of a sale...whcih is not a bad thing. I do labor myself. it's good way to gain skill and learn without having to hustle customers. The vet you work for has the customers to keep you busy, hwich goes back that posters main theme of vet players having a dedicated customer list, hence an advantage. Heck Im terrible at cold sales. I'd rather work under a vet with a customer base and let him work that end)). Hell they don't even buy tools and weapons anymore as vets flood them with free 80ql gear minutes after appearing on the scene.

 

This is further made illogical by the example of a newb buying 50k bricks..of which, a newb does not have the skill to even build anything that would use 50k bricks. As prices drop players stop recruiting new players to do the  menial work involved in the creation of that final product. Thats a loss of work new players relied on to get their first steps into the economy, learn the ropes, and gain skills, while at least paying for a 1s deed. Players are now keeping this all in house, as they can no longer afford to pay anew player to make nails and planks for a small barrel when it's only counted as 5 actions, and the 15 required.

 

Then goes on to promote the falsehood that there is nothing to worry about because there's a hard bottom and when we hit that point players will stop undercutting  and/or just stop producing. Both of which are false. we have already passed the hard bottom. We already have several items that, once broken down to their raw mats, are selling for less then token..and those prices are still dropping. Players have not stopped producing. Well, some of them have, but that's because they outright left the game and are playing other games and telling people the game dying and not to bother.

 The rest are still here grinding away at things that are worth less then token value...and the list of items nearing or crossing Rubicon of Token is growing, and we are still producing.

 

Hard bottom? We already passed the hard bottom. You you guys are here using as much twisted logic as you can try and deflect from the issues, and to push this unto the Devs, and pretend it will work out eventually.

 

Edited by Elisha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, kochinac said:

Wow, funny how people calling for epic fails in logic commit such horible crimes against it ;)

About you trying to be sarcastic with dwindling playerbase: So you think it's ok to destroy remaining playerbase too since it's dwindling? Cuz you're basing everything on a very bold premise that destroying curent veteran core of players will bread new life in wurm and somehow magicly summon bunch of new players who just waited for that? Uhm, i don't think that's main issue with people and them not playing Wurm ?

Second thing about alts you twisted ane shifted out of any context just that you look smart on forums... My point is that is pointless to indroduce proposed limitations in order to promote trading because people will bypass it with alts (or more alts) instead of you know actually trading. It would just create unnecessary hastle. It's totaly irrelevant if everyone already have alt or don't.

 

And one more thing you're terribly wrong is that is not that veteran players are problem but veteran accounts ot players who no longer play (a lot of veteran players who still play doesn't even bother with market or try to get rich from the game, there are always exceptions ofc). But you know who buys those accounts? New players, that's right.

Now removing character trading is seperate debate with alot of good cons and pros, but in the end yeah it does hurt market a lot for new players and unfortunately would be very difficult to ban it...

My thoughts are that maybe removing multiboxing would more natural solution as time is only true and natural constraint. Imagine if you had to choose will you chip bricks or grind blacksmithing to 90 instead of doing both at the same time ;) But people would whine about that too probably, and would create new pool of difficulties most likely.

 

Im saying that the argument that "if you commit x, people will leave" when the fact is people are already leaving. Makes the point mute.
 

And there's no twist about alts. thats a fact. in MMO's in general and in Wurm. Your in denial.

 

And yes, veterans players are supposed to cycle out at some point. the average MMO is expected to have 10 year life cycle. In that 10 years the end game is usually designed for a player to start hitting 2-4 years in, and pretty much suck the content dry by year 5 or 6. at that time, by design, they are supposed to start cycle out. This is not what happens, players do not cycle out. By year 6, 7 and 8 of an MMO players figure out how to make real money in the game and do not leave. This creates a top end problem, inflation, and a barrier to new players where they have no place in the game. Players are supposed to cycle out and new players cycle in to keep things moving along.

This problem gets exasperated when, at year 6-8 new players start to leave rather quickly as they find themselves with no place in the game because the end gamers are not cycling out and dominate everything.  The Devs start to panic, and to keep the money ball going, tend to cater to the loud and angry bittervets, further keeping them from cycling out and further alienating new players from wanting to stay.

 

Thats a downward spiral.

 

Now your the one twisting word here. You insuating that im saying that Devs should literally kick out older players. Not what I said. Devs should stop catering to them at some point (generally around the 5-7 year mark). Thats what I said. If Devs stop catering to bittervets in an irrational fear they'll leave...cause in actuality they are supposed to leave, this would make room for new players to find their place in the game and move up the ladder.

Edited by Elisha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Elisha said:

At 70 farming at 200 tiles I am committing the same amount of actions as aI was when I was 10 farming. Exactly the same. Do  not even pretend to try and tell me that because my yield went up Im spending less time in the feild, that the crops are seeding themselves and and jump out of the ground on their own. I am still committing to three actions per tile. Period.

 

Take any skill. If you had a 70 skilled blacksmith or 90 skilled blacksmith imp a tool to 70, the cost is the same. The price is always tied to the person that can do it in the fewest actions. That's...how economies work in game and in real life.

 

1 hour ago, Elisha said:

Do you seriously not see that as a total load of ######!!? Would accept that from your boss in real life if your pay was cut as you got better at you job?

 

You're looking at it as an employee. You have to look it as what each Wurmian is--a company. If someone managed to produce cars at 1/100th of the cost they are today with 1/100th the labor, guess what? Car prices would fall. If everyone was able to produce cars cheaply then the entire market (as it has in Wurm) would fall.

That's just shifting right along the supply curve.

 

Anyway, it looks like you have serious problems that need to get worked out. I wish you the best.

 

On a side note, I think account selling is probably one of the big evils in the economy but God knows how we're going to slay that dragon.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Hailene said:

On a side note, I think account selling is probably one of the big evils in the economy but God knows how we're going to slay that dragon.

 

Nailed it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Market is dead, it's time we stop being afraid of changes or shake ups to things because "Muh market"

Edited by Madnath
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll chime in re: account selling aka Recycling of Accountosaurs.

 

It doesn't just hurt the market, it hurts the community dynamic.

 

Wurm is a huge world which shrinks as you gain veteranship.  (In my case Release was a place I'd get lost in, by the end of my WO days I could successfully navigate Xanadu on foot).

 

Back in my newbie days, we had this alliance where it it was a bit of an event when "Cirianna travelled to the area" (which I later came to know as a "quick hop" from that area to my deed), maaaaan that was THE SMITH visiting ... got our stuff imped to i think it was FIFTY QUALITY! 

 

Over time we grew, I was quite the badass blacksmith and even THE TRAVELLER, the one who'd do most of the off-server trips when Xanadu connected.  Could get tools to Q70!  CARPENTRY TOO!  And each of us had their own area of badassery around those levels. 

 

We invited this dude, cool fellow really.  Loaded fellow too.  Next thing you know, he buys 4 or 5 strong accounts.  Our dynamic went to hell, he could 90 it all.  I was no longer the smith or the carpenter (at least I had my wanderer role which lasted for ages, glad I wasn't around when "plot course" was added).  The mason was no longer the mason.  The farmer was no longer the source of all that is gourmet.. etc... Great guy, but he made our game boring in many ways.

 

Had we been a market-oriented alliance that would have pretty much been our cue to quit.  

 

Tldr; account selling basically neutralizes the growth curve and negates the existence of the midbie.  It creates a world of "veterans and newbies", no mid range.   Midbie times can be the best times in wurm, you're still new enough but you still got goals.  Now you're either a brick cutter or you need silver to get it all to level 90 at q90.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Elisha said:

 

Im saying that the argument that "if you commit x, people will leave" when the fact is people are already leaving. Makes the point mute.
 

And there's no twist about alts. thats a fact. in MMO's in general and in Wurm. Your in denial.

 

And yes, veterans players are supposed to cycle out at some point. the average MMO is expected to have 10 year life cycle. In that 10 years the end game is usually designed for a player to start hitting 2-4 years in, and pretty much suck the content dry by year 5 or 6. at that time, by design, they are supposed to start cycle out. This is not what happens, players do not cycle out. By year 6, 7 and 8 of an MMO players figure out how to make real money in the game and do not leave. This creates a top end problem, inflation, and a barrier to new players where they have no place in the game. Players are supposed to cycle out and new players cycle in to keep things moving along.

This problem gets exasperated when, at year 6-8 new players start to leave rather quickly as they find themselves with no place in the game because the end gamers are not cycling out and dominate everything.  The Devs start to panic, and to keep the money ball going, tend to cater to the loud and angry bittervets, further keeping them from cycling out and further alienating new players from wanting to stay.

 

Thats a downward spiral.

 

Now your the one twisting word here. You insuating that im saying that Devs should literally kick out older players. Not what I said. Devs should stop catering to them at some point (generally around the 5-7 year mark). Thats what I said. If Devs stop catering to bittervets in an irrational fear they'll leave...cause in actuality they are supposed to leave, this would make room for new players to find their place in the game and move up the ladder.

Jesus you're not really that strong with logic as you think.

If you commit x people who would OTHERWISE stay would leave. The rest of people would leave wheater you commit x or not. 

So you have y amount of people that will go for for sure no matter what you do.  And you have z amount of people that would go if you commit x but would otherwise stay. Also yy amount of people that would come and stay if you commit x is highly debatable expecialy if you loose z amount of people that are currently most of the remaining playerbase because game will be even more ghost town than now(and we are close to that) which would detour yy amount of people staying but to go with that you can as well wipe everything and start with fresh servers and heavy marketing like it's the new game. Tbh i have no ide what your X is and why are we debating this, this is becoming very boring.

There is no reinventing wheel here. Population density is terrible and that creates poor market as resources are practicly unlimited, also the cycle you are talking about would happen naturally if charcters would not be reused when players stop playing.

And last, if developers of  this game caters anyone its the new players so don't give me that antiveteran bulshit. People who invested 10 years in this game, grinded when actually it was hard to grind, have every right to dominate market as they please of they want (again time and demand is true constraint here).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some people may stay because they can make RL money after 5 years of grind (adjust times and amount of RL money to whatever you want), but that's not everyone by a long shot.  A lot of people stay beyond the 5/10/15 year point because they want to keep playing.  I haven't sold anything in literally years, and I'm still here.  As are most of the long-term players I play with.  The community thing Mordraug refers to above is still going, incidently, it's just that our alliance has multiple very-high-skilled crafters (many of whom grinded up their own skills), who offer their skills for free to other alliance members, since what goes around comes around.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to disagree with all the people saying account selling hurts the game - I not only strongly disagree but I can even provide strong evidence against it;

 

Account trading has always been allowed in Wurm and I see no reason to suddenly backtrack on this now, rather in fact, I believe this to be a way players used to get some sense of accomplishment - it's nice to be able to PC an account you've worked on for 3 or 4 years, and be able to see that it is actually WORTH something. The time you've invested was not all squandered into worthless pixels because there is a real value held by the account and the support it can provide.

 

This is all only true however, if there are significantly more buyers than sellers, as has predominantly been the case throughout Wurm's history until recent years (the last 2 or 3) and no longer is.

 

Couple the dwindling playerbase with the fact that accounts rarely ever leave the market (few people leave the game permanently without selling an account with multiple (7 or 8+) 90+ skills, for example, because they can get a return on their initial investment) because there are no "account sinks" and low and behold, what do we get? An increasing supply of high-end accounts, without demand for them. Sounds quite like what we have at the moment eh?

 

Account trading is fine, if you have the player population (and new player influx) to support such a thing. Mechanics such as account sinks also help tremendously with this, especially when they give incentive to risk the "permadeath" (for lack of a better word) on the best account you can get your hands on.

 

TL;DR - Account trading is not the demon here, fix the population / new players / advertising problem, and add account sinks, and basically all your account values will right themselves to be in line with what the skillgain system allows for gains versus effort to acquire. Now the skillgain system needs some work too, but that's another bitchpost for another day...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that account trafficking may be a problem, and have already suffered myself from a toxic casual player as "neighbour" who couldn't have wreaked havoc without his purchased accounts. But: this affair also demonstrated the limits of purchased accounts abuse when a player lacks the competence he cannot gain by putting a couple of dollars or euros on the table. So what was  (and in some respect still is) a nuisance remained short of being disastrous, and somehow it is good not to have clashed with a toxic player with more experience and knowledge of game and skill mechanics. And also I received what you cannot buy: help, encouragement, and advice from friends, allies, and neighbours which averted much damage, and more than compensated for the grief sustained.

 

And, on the bright side: Account trafficing may be beneficial, especially for (re)entrance in PvP for some people at least, and be an enrichment of the game there. Ingame currency and item sale allows players with less time to grind, create/imp, and trade to get the resources and equipment they need.

 

What is more important in my eyes: It is mere blindness to pretend that account, and in so far also in game currency and virtual item trafficking, does vanish when it is banned and forbidden. A short look in the web reveals "gold and account farmers'" sites for every even remotely popular game, btw. high end account prices far below what is paid for an entry level (skill50-70 mostly) account in Wurm, so that prohibition hasn't even driven up prices.

 

As a matter of fact known in economy and social sciences, prohibition creates a black market. If the game management doesn't want to be completely ridiculed, it needs a lot of surveillance and policing, and strict rules which kind of account transfer (e.g. to different email, IP, possibly even natural person) can be tolerated, and requires ways deeper tapping into players' privacy. And stricter policing generates better gold and account farmers. Most of them are situated in Asia, Eastern Europe, and Latin America, and are quite skilled in milking ingame currency out of any game, and grinding skills at breathtaking pace (I met such guys in China couple of years ago).

 

Moreover, prohibition, together with black market, also favors crime. The game management in mainstream games not only forbid purchasing ingame resources on the black market, but also warn from the several forms of cybercrime related with, like identity theft, credit card fraud, hacking and phishing of any kind, and that is not only scaremongering, such behaviour is widespread on a black market.

 

Opening up to RL trafficking of ingame resources, or more exactly tolerating it with a warning and frowning upon, was a bold step by CCAB. All in all, I would call it a mostly successful move. It spares lots of spying, policing, and punishment for behaviour which will occur anyway. Some disadvantages remain of course.

 

 

Edited by Ekcin
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote

8 hours ago, kochinac said:

Jesus you're not really that strong with logic as you think.

If you commit x people who would OTHERWISE stay would leave. The rest of people would leave wheater you commit x or not. 

So you have y amount of people that will go for for sure no matter what you do.  And you have z amount of people that would go if you commit x but would otherwise stay. Also yy amount of people that would come and stay if you commit x is highly debatable expecialy if you loose z amount of people that are currently most of the remaining playerbase because game will be even more ghost town than now(and we are close to that) which would detour yy amount of people staying but to go with that you can as well wipe everything and start with fresh servers and heavy marketing like it's the new game. Tbh i have no ide what your X is and why are we debating this, this is becoming very boring.

There is no reinventing wheel here. Population density is terrible and that creates poor market as resources are practicly unlimited, also the cycle you are talking about would happen naturally if charcters would not be reused when players stop playing.

And last, if developers of  this game caters anyone its the new players so don't give me that antiveteran bulshit. People who invested 10 years in this game, grinded when actually it was hard to grind, have every right to dominate market as they please of they want (again time and demand is true constraint here).

 

Your assuming people will leave if x is implemented. Assumption is not logical. The assumption is based a false premise, that people currently are not leaving without x implemented. This false. people are leaving.

Your trying to justify an unknown as a fact while ignoring a constant known fact, that people are already leaving without x. X can not make people leave, if people are already leaving without x being implemented.

It  aslo completely ignores another unknown. how many people might come and stay that would other wise leave if x is implemented. 3 vets because of x, 5 new players stay because of x. Thats not a bad thing. You did not lose 3 players, you gain 2. ..which quite frankly that already is better then what this game is actually turning over, and it's just  a hypothetical.

 

Oh and you last part, that extreme hyperbowl but..yea, one can easily se you have an extreme anti-newb bias yourself. That is far more destructive to any game then an anti-vet bias.

And no, it's not a bias to expect veteran players to start moving on from game after end game. Thats actually how MMO's are developed for the long term. Hating new people, that's dangerous to the health of the game.

And you misguided thoughts that im rallying against vets having an advantage, you should just shut up and read for once, which you clearly have not yet, at all, once. In my other debate you can clearly see I am actually support vet advantage in market, where that person is trying to give me some line of BS that as one gains skills, their skills worth depreciate in value...I would call that anit-vet and vet advantage, where my skills at 20 are worth more then my skills at 70.

 

Learn to read, then try and understand how logic works, please. We are trying to have discussion here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Hailene said:

 

Take any skill. If you had a 70 skilled blacksmith or 90 skilled blacksmith imp a tool to 70, the cost is the same. The price is always tied to the person that can do it in the fewest actions. That's...how economies work in game and in real life.

 

 

You're looking at it as an employee. You have to look it as what each Wurmian is--a company. If someone managed to produce cars at 1/100th of the cost they are today with 1/100th the labor, guess what? Car prices would fall. If everyone was able to produce cars cheaply then the entire market (as it has in Wurm) would fall.

That's just shifting right along the supply curve.

 

Anyway, it looks like you have serious problems that need to get worked out. I wish you the best.

 

On a side note, I think account selling is probably one of the big evils in the economy but God knows how we're going to slay that dragon.

 

Quote

Take any skill. If you had a 70 skilled blacksmith or 90 skilled blacksmith imp a tool to 70, the cost is the same. The price is always tied to the person that can do it in the fewest actions. That's...how economies work in game and in real life.

No, the system is not accounting for it. Doesn't matter if you have 20 skill or 70 skill, it takes the same amount of actions. The only acceptations would be less fails, which are not accounted for in the "Wurm Minimum Wage".

Imp'ing is also not counted, as it is a different action. It is counted per 10ql increments. We are talking about inital creation and base cost of a product, before imping, running casting, ect. Those are separate costs.

You are not paying for failure. WMW only accounts for successes, and in that, it takes exactly the same amount of successful actions for a 20 skill player as 70 skill player for the same basic product.

 

As for the rest, that's my point. as players continue to leave, as new players continue to turn right around and walk out the door weeks after showing up, I see you will continue to try and spin donuts trying to justify how skill are worth less as you gain skill.

You have yet to explain, in any of this, how Im magically committing to less actions in the creation of any base product with higher skills. Not once have you proven that. At all. Any one. anyone can tel you that they are still committing to the same number of actions, the number of succsfull actions which is what WMW is counting, at 70, 80 and 90 askill as they did when they were at 20 skill. To try and tell me and others that at 70 skill we are not, therefore we get paid less, is blatant lie.

 

You are literally here lying, and defending that lie. It's easily proven that what smoke your trying blow around here is completely false.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Elisha said:

Your assuming people will leave if x is implemented. Assumption is not logical. The assumption is based a false premise, that people currently are not leaving without x implemented. This false. people are leaving.

Your trying to justify an unknown as a fact while ignoring a constant known fact, that people are already leaving without x. X can not make people leave, if people are already leaving without x being implemented.

It  aslo completely ignores another unknown. how many people might come and stay that would other wise leave if x is implemented. 3 vets because of x, 5 new players stay because of x. Thats not a bad thing. You did not lose 3 players, you gain 2. ..which quite frankly that already is better then what this game is actually turning over, and it's just  a hypothetical.

Now who is in denial here?  I don't assume anything. Now i don't  know what magical X solution you're imagining but i would say it takes more than that to attract people to this game but it's combination of factors rather and everything has its pros and cos... Everything about is very hypotetical, expecialy your premisse you're so convinced that if game get rid of old player new one will stick longer. But hey, we can always have new wurmagedon and try with that, some dev might accidentaly delete database and all backups ;)  I honestly don't care

 

1 hour ago, Elisha said:

one can easily se you have an extreme anti-newb bias yourself

Don't really have any anti-newb bias or any other bias, you got that wrong.

 

1 hour ago, Elisha said:

And no, it's not a bias to expect veteran players to start moving on from game after end game. Thats actually how MMO's are developed for the long term

Total bulshit. Your imagining utopian model i'm afraid but that's not how world and people works ;) Can't expect from someone to behave like you would just to fullfill your insane standard of what mmo should be...

1 hour ago, Elisha said:

Hating new people,

And again i really don't hate new people, would like to have them more around.

 

1 hour ago, Elisha said:

And you misguided thoughts that im rallying against vets having an advantage

But mate you're rallying against vets all over the place  Ok scratch that, nvm. This way of accusing doesn't lead anywhere anyway.

1 hour ago, Elisha said:

you should just shut up and read for once, which you clearly have not yet, at all, once

excelent advice, you should listen to it ;)

1 hour ago, Elisha said:

Learn to read, then try and understand how logic works, please. We are trying to have discussion here.

This too

 

1 hour ago, Elisha said:

In my other debate you can clearly see I am actually support vet advantage in market, where that person is trying to give me some line of BS that as one gains skills, their skills worth depreciate in value...I would call that anit-vet and vet advantage, where my skills at 20 are worth more then my skills at 70.

Didn't read your other debates it doesn't bother me, they are too long, contradictory and boring. Glanced some points that i maybe agree about, but really don't have time to read all. Which is why i don't get why are you so glued on idea of me lacking logic because it's all very hypotetical and it's not that much matter of logic anymore i'm afraid, it's totaly pointless.

It is not me that necroe responded to my post which i already forgot what was about it accusing me that i lack of logic, which is very insulting because i'm very logical, well read and smart person 

 

Anyway happy wurming mate, try to enjoy more ingame untill it lasts instead of mumbling on forums. It's very pointless and tiring and i don't have time for it.

 

Peace out

Edited by kochinac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somehow I don't think that the collective of individuals (the Wurm Staff and Owner) that are making these decisions as to how the player Market/Economy will function are adjusting it in terms of how the players can make the most money/profits from playing the game. I would imagine that they are more interested in the game making enough profit to pay the various operating expenses and paying the Wurm Staff/Contractors a competitive wage to keep them interested in their employment within/without the company.

 

This illusion that the player "Market" is of the most importance to focus upon and improve is just a player fiction created and perpetuated by those who make their few coins from it. It is just one facet of a multi-aspect gameplay. A minor draw to some players, hyped up to major proportions as being the only thing of importance to sustain player interest over time. You might notice that not much Developer attention is paid to it other than over the years an occasional attempt to adjust some of the excessiveness of it downwards in terms of payouts.

 

As long as the game achieves the main goals of a profitable business I suppose there is little harm in these types of player "Market" speculations and resolutions. Good for amusement purposes only, of course.

 

=Ayes=

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/29/2019 at 6:52 PM, Madnath said:

Market is dead, it's time we stop being afraid of changes or shake ups to things because "Muh market"

More or less, those that play the game only for this probably should look for a new economy simulator game. Classic WoW soon, I will be the best black lotus farmer ever!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Niki said:

More or less, those that play the game only for this probably should look for a new economy simulator game. Classic WoW soon, I will be the best black lotus farmer ever!

(No trolling whatsoever intended but , absolutely has to be linked:)

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dkkf5NEIo0

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.