A Realization Its Time To Rework Traders To Benefit All Players.

[Asciana 303]

Not everyone can have one because they take up around 125x125  areas of land and are not perfectly placed so the maximum amount of traders possible will never be reached.

 

That total land area they require to have can fit 36 21x21 deeds even if the Trader itself is only on a 21x21.  Basically it would take up 15k tiles all around it that no one can ever place a trader.

 

If a person places one 120 tiles away from another one in any direction all the land in between will never be able to have one.

 

When it comes down to it they will always pay out pretty decent. Now if you could place a trader on every single deed sure the pay out would go down a lot more, but that is not the case.

 

At some point there would be no space to place a Trader, but plenty of land to make deeds still.

 

Edit to fix numbers......

Not quite 36. You forgot to count the perimeter of each deed which is a minimum of 20-30 extra tiles in total (depending if you're counting the perimeter of the outer deeds in your 6*6 perfect square)

Edited May 16, 2013 by Asciana

[Protunia 735]

Not quite 36. You forgot to count the perimeter of each deed which is a minimum of 20-30 extra tiles in total (depending if you're counting the perimeter of the outer deeds in your 6*6 perfect square)

5+5+1+5+5  minimum deed size  21x21 tiles counting perimeter already.

Edited May 16, 2013 by Protunia

[Lithien 268]

I was slightly off btw.....they take up like 125 x 125 or so.

 

its 63 tiles in all directions.

 

SO its actually much more land than what I said above......

 

That means 36 21x21 deeds??? Per Trader of land that another Trader cannot be placed.

 

Anyway you look at it there is a lot of land that one Trader takes away from other Traders being able to be placed.

 

If we say 1/2 of indy is water or areas that cannot be used to placed Traders because the land cannot be flattened for a house thats about 8 million tiles left to place Traders.

 

8,000,000/15,000 = 533 if they were perfectly placed.

 

Indy already has 1100+ deeds.

Sadly I haven't had enough coffee, to give you the correct calculations. But I have had enough to see a major flaw in the calculations: You can't use the 15.000 tiles to divide by, as that is the tiles required for placing the first trader (already assuming that you can't place it closer than 63 tiles to the map's edges, although the requirement is 63 tiles from another trader in each direction - not 63 "free" tiles in each direction. I have no idea, but is it possible to place a trader on the edge of a map? No trader nearby, but not 63 free tiles away from edge either?). The second trader doesn't need an additional 63 tiles in each direction if perfectly placed. It can be placed on any tile bordering that 125x125 without an extra 63 tiles free first, so if perfectly placed, any trader besides that first one, would at most take only take half as many tiles, and besides the ones placed all around the map edges, they would actually only take a quarter of that space (Only 63 tiles added in 2 directions instead of 4 directions). So the amount of possible traders if perfectly placed is WAY higher tan 533.

 

EDIT: Actually, since you got the 8 million tiles by not including water tiles, you most definitely can place the trader at the "edges" of the landmass, so they would all just take up a quarter of the room you divided by, so you would get 2132 perfectly placed traders possible, not 533.

Edited May 16, 2013 by Lithien

[Protunia 735]

Sadly I haven't had enough coffee, to give you the correct calculations. But I have had enough to see a major flaw in the calculations: You can't use the 15.000 tiles to divide by, as that is the tiles required for placing the first trader (already assuming that you can't place it closer than 63 tiles to the map's edges, although the requirement is 63 tiles from another trader in each direction - not 63 "free" tiles in each direction. I have no idea, but is it possible to place a trader on the edge of a map? No trader nearby, but not 63 free tiles away from edge either?). The second trader doesn't need an additional 63 tiles in each direction if perfectly placed. It can be placed on any tile bordering that 125x125 without an extra 63 tiles free first, so if perfectly placed, any trader besides that first one, would at most take only take half as many tiles, and besides the ones placed all around the map edges, they would actually only take a quarter of that space (Only 63 tiles added in 2 directions instead of 4 directions). So the amount of possible traders if perfectly placed is WAY higher tan 533.

 

EDIT: Actually, since you got the 8 million tiles by not including water tiles, you most definitely can place the trader at the "edges" of the landmass, so they would all just take up a quarter of the room you divided by, so you would get 2132 perfectly placed traders possible, not 533.

 

 

 

 

Ok so thats why they haven't run out of Trader space quite yet, because i am sure there has to be close to 500 already.

 

Yeah that's about the first figure I got in another thread I was doing the math on it.

 

Its late here...well almost 6 am  now been up all night.

 

So lets go with 64x64 then and that figures to about 2k.

 

But they will not be perfectly placed and there will be deeds and perimeters blocking as well so that could even drop to 1-1.5k possible.

 

Looks like we have some more room folks!!!  plant them traders!!

Edited May 16, 2013 by Protunia

[Raybarg 436]

Yea, I think I go place my 3rd trader just to poke Murphys law with my suggestion in the suggestions forum. Like, why I suggest something that contradicts with the action I am doing? Am I not believing on my own suggestion? Am I not believing in the devs to ever make any change in context of the traders... or is it because, I just play the game? H m m m . . .

[Jarosz 189]

Traders take up a circle of 63 tile radius not a 64x64 square. True optimum placement is in staggered rows.

[yarnevk 257]

So, you confirm that my "might take many years" is valid? As the refresh period is "almost a month" so with 1s it would take "almost 50 months" and 2s it would take "almost 25 months". As much as two years could fall in category of "many years" is true... certainly if the minimum is at the low end, it indeed is "very many years".

 

I compiled whole debate in my head. If it indeed is risky to pruchase a trader in a prospect of everyone doing so, that after "many years" it finally starts to accumulate actual profit (worst scenario)... or if everyone are not getting a trader, .

 

You argument is flawed.   Rolf just changed the prices of the game by 60%, yet it does not show up immediately in the number of premiums and upkeeps falling.   Why?   Because this is not a subscription monthly renewal game, you are allowed to prepay as long as you want, and the system even encourages prepay with the last month having increased decay and fears you might lose something, or you prepay just to have security of knowing you do not have to worry about accidental disband.  Even if I wanted to protest by not paying I cannot, because I am already paid into 2014.  Because of prepay at the old price many stocked up for a year, so those numbers change very slowly because of the time averaging affect of prepay.   You are not allowed to manage your upkeep account, once the money is in there the only way to get it back is resizing or disbanding.   Most people I know that 'quit' keep their deed and just let premium run out in case they want to come back, there are many many empty deeds from absent players on Indy full of upkeep.    My Indy deed has one of those in every compass direction as a neighbor in my geographic area active deeds are in the minority. 

 

So as long as when you buy the trader the payout on Indy is 4mo and Release is 2mo, in that short time frame those upkeep numbers are not going to significantly change, and so what if that changes to 3-6mo it is still 100-300% instead of 200-500% profit for the year with infinite profit in future years regardless of the server economy after that.  It took many years for that payout to accelerate from the former one to two years when the trader program was started, and is unlikely to return to that payout level unless there is a slow decline in the game population over years.  It is also unlikely for everyone to buy a trader for the same reason that only 10% of the game buys premium, many people do not want to pay that kind of money for the game up front even if they get it back in months because in their mind the game is not worth anything beyond free.  Also the limits of geography means because of absent deeders or multi-traderes deeds the available deedable slots for traders are not always there, my alliance has wanted one for promoting alliance trade of noob stuffs but cannot find a deedable spot for one, because deeds have to be minimum symmetric rectangles.

 

That is why traders are not really speculative risk, because you need only look at the server charts and can predict your payout date and know it will not change next month from the trader/deeder ratio signficantly changing before payout.  Now make traders a monthly contract that the average trader is returned average deed upkeep for the month, and make upkeep monthly subscriptions that can be canceled rather than using prepay, then it does become a more speculative real estate play but managed risk because of lower buy-in time/money, because you can get out or get in based on what you think will happen that month.   It also means that both traders and non-traders can vote with their wallets to tell Rolf what they think of game price changes, and he would get that message every month.

 

So you are creating a strawman argument to prop up the idea that traders are investers with significant risk that potentially take years to payback, because that  is unlikely and has not been that way for years, and as it is unlikely for significant changes in the trader/deeder ratio to happen the month after you buy your trader.  The only real risk is Rolf shuts down the servers and goes out of business, and that screws everyone (not just traders) that prepaid into the game because there are no refunds.

 

Not to mention that Rolf could decide to nerf upkeep payouts and traders would still have profits and you are not counting that in your payout analysis.  Upkeep is not the only source of coin in the till, as trader players get decent discount on kingdom items (like deeds, traders, powder, etc.) they pay less (and they can resell these things under the table) for their kingdom needs which offsets the cost of a trader (and some traders have argued that is the only thing they bought it for and never drain it and pay cash for their game), and if traders are made public (or at least to village) the trader tax rate can be set in the buy low sell high markup and the trader gets to keep the coins of the trader profiting from being a trader.

Edited May 16, 2013 by yarnevk

[Raybarg 436]

 

So you are creating a strawman argument to prop up the idea that traders are investers with significant risk that potentially take years to payback.

 

 

Apart from you saying what I was writing is an argument, I found the point which shows why I believe you and I are not thinking the same way about this subject. That there, I quoted. Significant risk? I said that "IF" -> "IS IT A RISK?"

 

Anyhow. You in the other hand just seem to be arguing without offering any solution to anything. Sorry. I cannot give you an argument, I am not the kind to argue.

 

Also, I have moved on. I exposed my suggestion in the suggestions forum, you can go argue that suggestion too, if you will, and you will continue to "communicate" with me in this subject.

 

Dont ask the reason I typed this post, I dont know that.

[Jarosz 189]

 

So you are creating a strawman argument to prop up the idea that traders are investers with significant risk that potentially take years to payback, because that  is unlikely and has not been that way for years, and as it is unlikely for significant changes in the trader/deeder ratio to happen the month after you buy your trader.  The only real risk is Rolf shuts down the servers and goes out of business, and that screws everyone (not just traders) that prepaid into the game because there are no refunds.

.

 

Depends on which server you play on.  Not everyone flocks to new servers when they open, not even all the "trader empires" players.  Established server traders pay out 1-2s a month.  It stabilizes around 9-12 months into a servers establishment where new deeds are no longer out pacing disbanding deeds.  It stabilizes even further with F2P characters buying premium in game (reducing the available silver that could go to making more deeds)  At some point, any additional Trader contracts established after the stabilization reduces the amount of payout (if they are well tended and have the ratio set... meaning, AFK traders get little to nothing after 2 months of inactivity by the private owner.  Which is something Rolf intended, he didn't want silver piling up on traders that never get used by anyone).  If at this point someone decides to spawn 100 traders into the map, they actually benefit all the existing Trader owners.  Each trader needs a deed.  Every deed pays upkeep.  And if upkeep is 1s minimum, the trader posted on the deed will only payout if tended to.  1 person can't always be online at the right time to set the ratio with all the right items on all their traders.  So, the "establishment" of existing trader owners inevitably get more.

 

Rolf's server costs are actually relatively small.  only a hand full of premium players are needed per month to fund 1 server. He used to develop this game on his free time while working a 2nd job (with 2-3 servers active and some having less than 10-20 players active on average)

 

The only beneficial idea that you have had is to "reserve" a portion of upkeep for paying out later in the server's history.  Monthly subscription will only scare away most investors from traders, and allow the Elite who know exactly how to drain them to benefit the most.  I am not going to invest 10 silver a month on something that only returns 2s and wait 10 months to get it to 8s.  That goes against what the real purpose of traders is, which is to guarantee reduced cost of Upkeep, not make it astronomically higher with a 25% chance you might strike it rich one month out of the year.

 

Traders either take in Tax to pay the village upkeep, or you drain them to pay the village upkeep. It just so happens, you are better off privatizing them because everyone wants to drain them of silver if they have any.  Rarely does anyone buy kingdom items.  An average trader probably makes less than 10 kingdom item sales a year.  Maybe if you put the premium purchase option on the Trader they woud become more public.

Edited May 16, 2013 by Jarosz

[Ayes 3,715]

With simple fact that IF everyone gets one then everyone would be equal. Its in the game.

 

Back into how it is, if everyone gets their trader then there is no need to publish traders, everyone can have their private trader. (although in reality currently I know quite many public traders). IF everyone would have their own private trader then there would be no issue about the trader generated coin

 

the way that in a hypothetical scenario everyone would have a trader it would balance out, that means only one thing; Its in balance

You contention here presumes that the problem with Trader Draining is that not everyone is able to have one. That is not the issue at all as I see it or have presented it and this suggestion would only make the problem that the Trader Draining Subsidy creates elevated to an even more significant level. This premise that those who oppose the system of Trader Draining do so because they don't have one and are jealous of those who do have them is a *fabrication* made up by those who support Trader Draining; therefore, to structure some sort of system wherein everyone could have a Trader does not address the problem associated with them.

 

Here is the problem with the Trader Draining Subsidy. Any coins that players drain from Traders are taking income away from the games profits by eliminating the need to purchase those coins from the Wurm Shop. Also they can be used to avoid paying for Premium time from the Wurm Shop. Also players in turn sell their excess of these coins for prices that have been 30-45% less than the Wurm Shop. The Wurm Shop income is what supports the payment model and financial income of the game which perpetuates its existence. For Rolf to undercut his own profit potential in this manner has a significant detrimental impact on his financial profits; therefore, the Trader Draining Subsidy should be eliminated.

 

This was all brought to the forefront because of the price increases upon all of the playerbase. If the Trader Draining Subsidy were eliminated the game profits would increase significantly and everyone would then pay their fair share for playing the game of Wurm and the options available within it. Those who make use of this Trader Draining Subsidy don't want it eliminated since they would then have to pay out of their own pockets for the game services that they pay for with these Drained coins; thus, their counter is to perpetuate the "Trader Hater" myth into some sort of hysterical response rather than address its financial implications as I have done once again here.

 

I would dare say that the vast majority of the most successful onliine games do not structure themselves in this manner where they undercut their own profits by giving their players the ability to sell items from which they make their game profits. Beyond that, many strictly forbid their players from selling their ingame coins and making a profit in real life money from doing so. Wurm is *almost* oddly unique in this manner and I fail to see how it is a good idea to continue on with this Trader Draining Subsidy. Somehow these millions of other players of these various financially successful games have managed to come up with the funds required to play these games and yet those who make use of this Trader Draining Subsidy claim that it is necessary for them to be able to play the game of Wurm Online. Oh, in the manner in which they have become accustomed to due to the funds that this Subsidy provides.

 

=Ayes=

[Jarosz 189]

<FABRICATION - Works as Devs Intended - please show your numbers - this argument has been debased>

Here is the problem with the Trader Draining Subsidy. Any coins that players drain from Traders are taking income away from the games profits by eliminating the need to purchase those coins from the Wurm Shop.

 

<FABRICATION - Works as Devs Intended - Rolf pays players to act as money sinks to stimulate further silver purchase>

Also they can be used to avoid paying for Premium time from the Wurm Shop.

 

<FABRICATION - Works as Devs Intended - Rolf has stated any item in game can be sold for RL Money>

Also players in turn sell their excess of these coins for prices that have been 30-45% less than the Wurm Shop.

 

<FABRICATION - Works as Devs Intended (Premium is the main/consistent contributor to finances/profitability of wurm>

The Wurm Shop income is what supports the payment model and financial income of the game which perpetuates its existence.

 

<Conjecture - You are assuming this effects Rolf negatively>

For Rolf to undercut his own profit potential in this manner has a significant detrimental impact on his financial profits; therefore, the Trader Draining Subsidy should be eliminated.

 

[yarnevk 257]

Anyhow. You in the other hand just seem to be arguing without offering any solution to anything. Sorry. I cannot give you an argument, I am not the kind to argue.

 

 

Then maybe you should read more than argue because in the very response you selectively quoted, I suggested some things and have been doing so in the last month.

[yarnevk 257]

Rolf's server costs are actually relatively small.  only a hand full of premium players are needed per month to fund 1 server. He used to develop this game on his free time while working a 2nd job (with 2-3 servers active and some having less than 10-20 players active on average)

 

 

 

Maybe back when you was playing he was not paying for development staff or contracted gfx or himself.   But if he was still treating this as a hobby job with nearly free servers, he would not have had to raise prices 60% (28%+VAT).     

 

It is really necessary to pick apart the money specifics of a proposed idea, rather than suggesting pricing strategy that makes it work?   First of all my idea is that the average trader, would profit the average upkeep. So your entire argument is invalid because profit means you made back your expense which was the trader fee - be it 10s or 5s for that fee it is irrelevant because all you are doing is buying that silver with a one month late delivery, that is why I described it as a monthly 'loan' you give Rolf cash and he pays you back later the 'principal and interest' in silver.   If Rolf thinks there needs to be more risk in the system to balance above average payouts for more reward or drain the economy to get more paid for coins into the system he could dip into that fee and not give it back, the tuning of the actual number is up to him, and I propose that he should be able to change the numbers as he needs to manipulate the silver economy and not stick with fixed pricing schemes.  

 

The way I would like to see it is a new category of premium that is like the premium+silver, just make it premium+trader, with the pricing set accordingly so that if I am not a complete idiot I should get my upkeep on a larger deed paid for, and Rolf makes cash from me just as if I had bought the extra silver.    I most certainly would buy one of those despite your claims nobody would pay a subscription fee, because I already pay for the premium+upkeep silver deal, and I would think the reason that deal is on the website is people do buy that deal all the time.   If I sucked at the premium+trader deal and do not make my upkeep, I go back to the premium+silver deal.

Edited May 16, 2013 by yarnevk

[Jarosz 189]

Maybe back when you was playing he was not paying for development staff or contracted gfx or himself.   But if he was still treating this as a hobby job with nearly free servers, he would not have had to raise prices 60% (28%+VAT).     

 

It is really necessary to pick apart the money specifics of a proposed idea, rather than suggesting pricing strategy that makes it work?   First of all my idea is that the average trader, would profit the average upkeep. So your entire argument is invalid because profit means you made back your expense which was the trader fee - be it 10s or 5s for that fee it is irrelevant because all you are doing is buying that silver with a one month late delivery, that is why I described it as a monthly 'loan' you give Rolf cash and he pays you back later the principal and interest in silver.   If Rolf thinks there needs to be more risk in the system to balance above average payouts for more reward or drain the economy to get more paid for coins into the system he could dip into that fee and not give it back, the tuning of the actual number is up to him, and I propose that he should be able to change the numbers as he needs to manipulate the silver economy and not stick with fixed pricing schemes.

 

And what makes you think that Rolf wouldn't return to sole development if the money isn't there?  He can survive just fine, and has been for several years. 1,000 active premium accounts (paid) = 96k Euro a year.  He is well over 2k paid accounts.  Silver purchases aren't even factored in yet.

 

If anything, he raised the income 60% because he originally believed people would buy at least 5 silver a month to play. Well over 50% do not, and do not need to regardless of silver circulation.  The majority of players in Wurm are villagers, not Mayors.

 

What makes it work is in the numbers.  Otherwise its well wished ideals that crush an already working economy.

 

Your Idea would also FORCE people to lock them up to insure they get the min 10 silver back to continue paying for them.

Edited May 16, 2013 by Jarosz

[yarnevk 257]

 

Your Idea would also FORCE people to lock them up to insure they get the min 10 silver back to continue paying for them.

 

No it would not, as I said that fee is a cash for silver later loan. It does not go into the traders pool, the traders are still the same game of playing for the servers deed upkeep it is now.  The only thing that changes is making the fee a monthly contract that buys you silver later, rather than a one-time fee, and the method of calculating the upkeep pool to remove the trader/deeder ratio so the amount in the pool is simply traders times average upkeep rather than 50% (or whatever tax is) of all deeders upkeep.

 

Now Rolf has the right in the EULA to change the terms of that deal.   Instead of you buying 10s (or whatever amount makes sense) you get the trader for a month and get paid that silver a month later plus upkeep profits, he could bail out and say you know what you are getting 6s back and half the average upkeep because I am Rolf and I say so.   He could also say the next months trader contract will cost 5e or 20e whatever he decides the price needs to be to make sure he is balancing CodeAB income vs. the Wurm silver economy. vs. rage quitters.  

 

However I do expect traders to continue to be locked up for the sole reason the best way to extract that upkeep is having your own crafter sell overpriced stuff and keeping the noobs pelts out of your trader.  I am not changing that at all.  That is why I added the provision to encourage public traders by saying not renewing that contract you do not lose the trader, you just lose the upkeep entitlement.  You get the taxes from noob trading furs and bits and buying lanterns and deeds (and other kingdom sundries)., and the public needs to barter rather than sell if there is no coin in there.   (Though I also liked the idea that your open to public traders till be your upkeep donation pool as well, that is a really good idea for a noob village)

Edited May 16, 2013 by yarnevk

[Jarosz 189]

No it would not, as I said that fee is a cash for silver later loan. It does not go into the traders pool, the traders are still the same game of playing for the servers deed upkeep it is now.  The only thing that changes is making the fee a monthly contract that buys you silver later, rather than a one-time fee, and the method of calculating the upkeep pool to remove the trader/deeder ratio so the amount in the pool is simply traders times average upkeep rather than 50% (or whatever tax is) of all deeders upkeep.

 

Now Rolf has the right in the EULA to change the terms of that deal.   Instead of you buying 10s (or whatever amount makes sense) you get the trader for a month and get paid that silver a month later plus upkeep profits, he could bail out and say you know what you are getting 6s back and half the average upkeep because I am Rolf and I say so.   He could also say the next months trader contract will cost 5e or 20e whatever he decides the price needs to be to make sure he is balancing CodeAB income vs. the Wurm silver economy. vs. rage quitters.  

 

However I do expect traders to continue to be locked up for the sole reason the best way to extract that upkeep is having your own crafter sell overpriced stuff and keeping the noobs pelts out of your trader.  I am not changing that at all.  That is why I added the provision to encourage public traders by saying not renewing that contract you do not lose the trader, you just lose the upkeep entitlement.  You get the taxes from noob trading furs and bits and buying lanterns and deeds (and other kingdom sundries)., and the public needs to barter rather than sell if there is no coin in there.   (Though I also liked the idea that your open to public traders till be your upkeep donation pool as well, that is a really good idea for a noob village)

 

 

10s a month.  How do you get it back? I put 10s in, and trader gives it back to me 1 month later? And I give it back to him, and get it back again 1 month later?

 

So, a Trader now only costs 10s indefinitely? (what guarantees that I get the 10s back?) I don't care for your "rolf could change the numbers misdirection explanation"

 

If Rolf says, you will get back the 10s you put in every month (and he never changes it)  How am I guaranteed to get it back every month? (Do I get some special interaction since he is "my" trader now?)

 

Is this some way to "lock out" AFK trader owners who aren't on to hand back the 10s?

[Suntzu 644]

64% of people think this thread is useless.

[yarnevk 257]

Jarosz

 

You only pay the monthly contract with cash, it does not work if it is a silver item because then yes you recycle the same 10s you get back.   The entire purpose of it being a cash item is to end that endless cycle of traders funding traders that leads to infinite recursive profits, and eliminate possibility of Rolf not getting paid.  (regardless of a trader saying they do not play it like that, the fact is it is possible to do that and several traders have said they will milk it while they can even if they agree it should not be possible) So your scenario cannot happen.

 

Yes you could save up a year later and sell that returned trader fee as gold for cash, but you will not get Rolfs price that you paid for the gold, and you pay the opportunity price of having to hoard not being able to spend that silver.

 

It does not really matter what that price is because the intent is that be just a payment for delayed silver, the real purpose of that price is to set the intended %profit that the average trader earns in average upkeep.  Maybe he changes that price per server or even per player (a lot of MMOs have dynamic pricing because it is a sales trick that works, just ask JCPenny how well fixed flat pricing works)

 

You pay cash for silver on the website, Rolf deposits silver in your token 5min later.   You pay cash for a trader on the website, Rolf enables upkeep earning trader service for a month, then at the end of month puts your trader fee in your token.  In return for not getting your coin for a month he enables you to try to make more by tapping the trader to get at the upkeep distribution.   I only point out that Rolf can go back on that deal because he can, after all I hardly expect to loan my brother money and expect to get 100% principal and 50% profit back a month later and I certainly trust someone less who has an EULA saying he can do it.  

 

And I am saying he should use dynamic pricing and payout so if the silver economy is not booming/crashing as he would like he can change that, just like he can adjust the silver tax rates now or change premium/silver value now.  Maybe traders complain it is not risky enough and they want to earn more than a few sigma from the norm and he says OK but that means I return 80% of your trader fee, it is up to you to earn that 20% and the upkeep otherwise I will give that 20% to the better trader.   

 

My point is these are the details Rolf should figure and you should not be making spreadsheet analysis on them, the point of the idea is to make it a delayed silver subscription service that the average trader adds average deed upkeep to which is a reasonable profit that makes it the best discount to play the game without f2p restrictions yet it keeps Rolf getting paid and keeps deed upkeep circulating.   It does not mean everyone will do it because I want my silver now so I buy it now.   Even if everyone does it, the pool does not dilute because existing trader deed spacing rules are used so traders is always less than deeders (of course that means it never paid out gold per month to begin with).   If Rolf finds a upkeep reserve balance is no longer needed, he could put it into a lottery or just increase to above average payouts until it is exhausted.

Edited May 16, 2013 by yarnevk

[Jarosz 189]

Jarosz

 

You only pay the monthly contract with cash, it does not work if it is a silver item because then yes you recycle the same 10s you get back.   The entire purpose of it being a cash item is to end that endless cycle of traders funding traders that leads to infinite recursive profits, and eliminate possibility of Rolf not getting paid.  (regardless of a trader saying they do not play it like that, the fact is it is possible to do that and several traders have said they will milk it while they can even if they agree it should not be possible) So your scenario cannot happen.

 

Yes you could save up a year later and sell that returned trader fee as gold for cash, but you will not get Rolfs price that you paid for the gold, and you pay the opportunity price of having to hoard not being able to spend that silver.

 

It does not really matter what that price is because the intent is that be just a payment for delayed silver, the real purpose of that price is to set the intended %profit that the average trader earns in average upkeep.  Maybe he changes that price per server or even per player (a lot of MMOs have dynamic pricing because it is a sales trick that works, just ask JCPenny how well fixed flat pricing works)

 

You pay cash for silver on the website, Rolf deposits silver in your token 5min later.   You pay cash for a trader on the website, Rolf enables upkeep earning trader service for a month, then at the end of month puts your trader fee in your token.  In return for not getting your coin for a month he enables you to try to make more by tapping the trader to get at the upkeep distribution.   I only point out that Rolf can go back on that deal because he can, after all I hardly expect to loan my brother money and expect to get 100% principal and 50% profit back a month later and I certainly trust someone less who has an EULA saying he can do it.  

 

And I am saying he should use dynamic pricing and payout so if the silver economy is not booming/crashing as he would like he can change that, just like he can adjust the silver tax rates now or change premium/silver value now.  Maybe traders complain it is not risky enough and they want to earn more than a few sigma from the norm and he says OK but that means I return 80% of your trader fee, it is up to you to earn that 20% and the upkeep otherwise I will give that 20% to the better trader.   

 

My point is these are the details Rolf should figure and you should not be making spreadsheet analysis on them, the point of the idea is to make it a delayed silver subscription service that the average trader adds average deed upkeep to which is a reasonable profit that makes it the best discount to play the game without f2p restrictions yet it keeps Rolf getting paid and keeps deed upkeep circulating.   It does not mean everyone will do it because I want my silver now so I buy it now.   Even if everyone does it, the pool does not dilute because existing trader deed spacing rules are used so traders is always less than deeders (of course that means it never paid out gold per month to begin with).   If Rolf finds a upkeep reserve balance is no longer needed, he could put it into a lottery or just increase to above average payouts until it is exhausted.

 

 

Ok, you do realize you will bump up the worth of in game silver with this mechanism correct? Which will keep only those who pay Rolf in the cycle of in game currency and block out any one else.

 

With the lack of access to silver, players will be looking to buy it from other players because the price is too high from Rolf's shop.  So, the 65% worth jumps to 80%.  Now, instead of 104 euro, 1 gold is worth 128euro.

 

This means, I can buy 10 traders with 160 euro a month.  The average return will be at least 100s, plus whatever I scrape out of upkeep (with 10 traders, at 10s that is another 100s).  I can then sell 200 silver for 256 euro.  I can then buy 16... and so on and so on until I have well over 100 traders.

 

FAIL.

Edited May 16, 2013 by Jarosz

[yarnevk 257]

 

This means, I can buy 10 traders with 160 euro a month.  The average return will be at least 100s, plus whatever I scrape out of upkeep (with 10 traders, at 10s that is another 100s).  I can then sell 200 silver for 256 euro.  I can then buy 16... and so on and so on until I have well over 100 traders.

 

FAIL.

 

 

no what is FAIL is a system of today where Rolf does not get paid at ALL if you can use a traders silver to buy another trader until you have an empire that returns gold every month.    What you say can be done with anything that returns a profit margin, all you are doing is skimming the margin to reinvest to skim some more.  You already said you already ran a similar scheme by working the system for exchange rates of silver, euro the dollar and gold to profit, with Rolfs approval so why is your scheme here FAIL when that scheme was not? 

 

Of course I do not propose that Rolf do 100% profit for everyone nor do I see the average deed is 10s nor do I see gold going for 128e (some trying to get 90e even though gold has been scarce for weeks).   Suppose however that Rolf says 100% profit is OK, but the average deed upkeep is 1s because everyone dowsized and fired their guards, so he sets the price at 1.59e for a trader that pays 1s+1s which you get back and sell 2s for 1.61e, are you really going to move tens of thousands of euro to exploit that now very thin profit margin?   Exact same math you just did but Rolf is in charge of dynamic pricing.  Hooray for Rolf if he profits off that cycle because the more cash you cycle thru the system, the more cash he makes for CodeAB because all he has to do in this profit shaving enterprise is cash the PayPal checks and pay his taxes.   He just as well forgo the trader and sell you discount subscriptions which you resell at a lesser discount because he still makes more income with you working as his salesman rather than you actually playing his game.

 

And this is exactly why I said do not spreadsheet analysis the idea and call it fail, because it is up to Rolf to set the pricing so that anyone wanting to exploit the margins by moving hundreds  thousands (or even tens of thousands) of euro each month through cannot unless he is fine with making more cash everytime you go thru his shop (which he must be since he allows gold sales to profit in the first place so people can buy shop premium rather than pay silver in game)  All Rolf needs to do is set the trader pricing and the average trader profit such that if you a month later try to cash out in gold it is counter balanced by discount gold pricing so you break even and have no net profit at all, or worse of all simply say one trader per player.   It does not mean traders cannot cash out in gold, it just means they have to be good at what they do, and that is no different than a superior blacksmith cashing out in gold.  On average that does not happen, it only happens on the exception, which means Rolf wins with more cash payments, and the economy wins with upkeep being distributed.  

 

You keep ignoring what I say about EULA and if he sees you trying to exploit a system for your personal profit without CodeAB getting a cut or an improved silver economy, then he can, will, and has changed the system.  By your own admission Rolf changes actually put you out of biz when he saw what you was doing and decided to put premium in for game silver, and no doubt if you came back to the game you would use one of your many threads on how to skim yet again.  Up to Rolf if wants to let you profit or not.    

 

Now I have nothing against you skimming for I did much the same IRL with my brother.  Worked until the rules of the credit and housing industry changed and we both skipped into the bailout systems .  So sometimes skimming works for all parties involved, sometimes it does not.  It obviously works to keep Wall St in biz, well most of the time anyways.

Edited May 16, 2013 by yarnevk

[Kadore 926]

You contention here presumes that the problem with Trader Draining is that not everyone is able to have one. That is not the issue at all as I see it or have presented it and this suggestion would only make the problem that the Trader Draining Subsidy creates elevated to an even more significant level. This premise that those who oppose the system of Trader Draining do so because they don't have one and are jealous of those who do have them is a *fabrication* made up by those who support Trader Draining; therefore, to structure some sort of system wherein everyone could have a Trader does not address the problem associated with them.

 

Here is the problem with the Trader Draining Subsidy. Any coins that players drain from Traders are taking income away from the games profits by eliminating the need to purchase those coins from the Wurm Shop. Also they can be used to avoid paying for Premium time from the Wurm Shop. Also players in turn sell their excess of these coins for prices that have been 30-45% less than the Wurm Shop. The Wurm Shop income is what supports the payment model and financial income of the game which perpetuates its existence. For Rolf to undercut his own profit potential in this manner has a significant detrimental impact on his financial profits; therefore, the Trader Draining Subsidy should be eliminated.

 

This was all brought to the forefront because of the price increases upon all of the playerbase. If the Trader Draining Subsidy were eliminated the game profits would increase significantly and everyone would then pay their fair share for playing the game of Wurm and the options available within it. Those who make use of this Trader Draining Subsidy don't want it eliminated since they would then have to pay out of their own pockets for the game services that they pay for with these Drained coins; thus, their counter is to perpetuate the "Trader Hater" myth into some sort of hysterical response rather than address its financial implications as I have done once again here.

 

I would dare say that the vast majority of the most successful onliine games do not structure themselves in this manner where they undercut their own profits by giving their players the ability to sell items from which they make their game profits. Beyond that, many strictly forbid their players from selling their ingame coins and making a profit in real life money from doing so. Wurm is *almost* oddly unique in this manner and I fail to see how it is a good idea to continue on with this Trader Draining Subsidy. Somehow these millions of other players of these various financially successful games have managed to come up with the funds required to play these games and yet those who make use of this Trader Draining Subsidy claim that it is necessary for them to be able to play the game of Wurm Online. Oh, in the manner in which they have become accustomed to due to the funds that this Subsidy provides.

 

=Ayes=

This long winded post only works if people do choose to buy coins from the shop and continue to spend and buy items at the rate they do currently, you risk loosing people unable to sell items and quitting the game if sales dry up no matter where the coin comes from, with some solely playing the game for the excitement of making and selling items lose interest and with those that lose interest of losing trader income ( no matter what side of the argument your on ). 

 

As far as the buying and selling of coins, accounts etc., it is well documented Wurm has no issue with that except to say the will do little if one party rips off the others, why you seem to be in disagreement with any concept that does not put all the money in the hands of Code Club, the issues at hand are hardly new except you seem to know what best in the financial future and direction of Code Club that a paid accountant was unable to discern with all the balance sheets available to him.

[joedobo 1,187]

 

<FABRICATION - Works as Devs Intended - please show your numbers - this argument has been debased>

Here is the problem with the Trader Draining Subsidy. Any coins that players drain from Traders are taking income away from the games profits by eliminating the need to purchase those coins from the Wurm Shop.

 

<FABRICATION - Works as Devs Intended - Rolf pays players to act as money sinks to stimulate further silver purchase>

Also they can be used to avoid paying for Premium time from the Wurm Shop.

 

<FABRICATION - Works as Devs Intended - Rolf has stated any item in game can be sold for RL Money>

Also players in turn sell their excess of these coins for prices that have been 30-45% less than the Wurm Shop.

 

<FABRICATION - Works as Devs Intended (Premium is the main/consistent contributor to finances/profitability of wurm>

The Wurm Shop income is what supports the payment model and financial income of the game which perpetuates its existence.

 

<Conjecture - You are assuming this effects Rolf negatively>

For Rolf to undercut his own profit potential in this manner has a significant detrimental impact on his financial profits; therefore, the Trader Draining Subsidy should be eliminated.

 

 

 

 

1. That observation is just as correct as your opinion that its beneficial to the system. The numbers you have posted in the past are no more correct than numbers I have posted on the same subject  I challenge you to show your survey results showing how all these people will quit if they didn't have subsidy cash. In my opinion is nowhere near as large as you make it out to be.

 

2. Uhm, this is just an extension of the fact that ClubAB is giving out a subsidy valuing more € than the € it earns from premium purchases. If you give away more then 30€ in services and then in turn only make 16€ your not making as much as you could. All the subsidy silver I take never stimulates any shop purchases. It lets me play for free (1-2 premium toons every monty, 8s upkeep, magic chests, 2 rods of transmutation, 5 trader contracts)!

 

3. Thats not a lie. Players do sell coins for less than the shop prices and as you point out its not against the rules. But the statement is still true.

 

4. Premium does in fact support the game. Like I've said I disagree with you >>>OPNION<<< (I challenge you to post survey results, if you want to claim otherwise) that player counts would drastically drop if more people had to buy from shop. So more players buying from the shop means more revenue.

 

5. Just as you're assuming about its benefits.

[Jarosz 189]

1. That observation is just as correct as your opinion that its beneficial to the system. The numbers you have posted in the past are no more correct than numbers I have posted on the same subject  I challenge you to show your survey results showing how all these people will quit if they didn't have subsidy cash. In my opinion is nowhere near as large as you make it out to be.

 

2. Uhm, this is just an extension of the fact that ClubAB is giving out a subsidy valuing more € than the € it earns from premium purchases. If you give away more then 30€ in services and then in turn only make 16€ your not making as much as you could. All the subsidy silver I take never stimulates any shop purchases. It lets me play for free (1-2 premium toons every monty, 8s upkeep, magic chests, 2 rods of transmutation, 5 trader contracts)!

 

3. Thats not a lie. Players do sell coins for less than the shop prices and as you point out its not against the rules. But the statement is still true.

 

4. Premium does in fact support the game. Like I've said I disagree with you >>>OPNION<<< (I challenge you to post survey results, if you want to claim otherwise) that player counts would drastically drop if more people had to buy from shop. So more players buying from the shop means more revenue.

 

5. Just as you're assuming about its benefits.

 

 

By all means, prove my numbers wrong.  I'm not doing the work to prove it works, when it has proven to work.  Wurm still exists.  Thats all the proof that over 64% of the people voting in this thread need.  There's your survey.

 

You guys are trying to convince the working class (the majority of wurm players) that the rich getting richer is good for Wurm.  That the Rich having the only access to the circulation of in game wealth (that has no vaule other than what is assigned by the players themselves) is good for THEM.

 

Good luck getting answers.

 

If you think changing it to a PURELY PAY  TO WIN system, that somehow it was the Traders that kill off wurm, please... PLEASE... Show me how Rolf will make profit by cutting of F2P.

Edited May 17, 2013 by Jarosz

[Brahma 21]

Really? This thread / topic is still going?

 

The answer has been given.  The survey gave the correct result, even though it was worded in a biased manner.

 

Enough already.

[joedobo 1,187]

By all means, prove my numbers wrong.  I'm not doing the work to prove it works, when it has proven to work.  Wurm still exists.  Thats all the proof that over 64% of the people voting in this thread need.  There's your survey.

 

You guys are trying to convince the working class (the majority of wurm players) that the rich getting richer is good for Wurm.  That the Rich having the only access to the circulation of in game wealth (that has no vaule other than what is assigned by the players themselves) is good for THEM.

 

Good luck getting answers.

I don't need to prove your numbers are wrong. Just pointed out that your numbers are based on your OPNION is good enough. Yea, Wurm still exists as a very small game by mmo standards, with more volunteer developers then payed staff, no payed cm/gm/ or other community related moderators, and recently had to increase prices to pay the bills.