Goldflation II

2456714

Comments

  • LuceLuce Fox Populi
    Ssaliss said:
    Estarra said:
    Maybe 10k grains/units/dust per goop? Would that be more reasonable?
    To be entirely honest, I'd rather not see them be turned into goop at all. Since the only sources are arties/aetherspace (and aetherspace isn't exactly used a whole lot these days), it'd essentially end up like owning artifacts to generate more artifacts for you...
    The only way I could get behind any motes > goop, motes > dingbat, or motes > credit style transfers is if it can be obtained through entirely IC means like a regular, repeatable quest, and if it can be bought and sold like commodities for gold (perhaps with a tax inherent in the purchase, like 10% of any mote's sale price vanishes into the ether.) And even then, it'll lead to rich-get-richer =/.
  • Eh. I disagree. 
    If the new psudocurrency doesn't turn into anything I'm really going to use then it's really just trading gold for nothing to me. 
    If that's the case I'm just going to end up brewing it into goldentonics/pizzazz and selling it in my shop to circulate more gold.
    (I'm the mom of Hallifax btw, so if you are in Hallifax please call me mom.)

    == Professional Girl Gamer == 
    Yes I play games
    Yes I'm a girl
    get over it
  • I have no problem with the dust - goop. It's not like people will be generating dust fast enough to buy all the artifacts. You could even put diminishing returns on people with 10000000000 maps so they can't abuse the system. There are plenty of ways with this system to generate dust for everyone involved. Heck a basic trap doesn't cost that much if you want to get started.
  • Well, that would be what it would turns into... It would turn into candies, or tonics, or essence for your nexus. You could sell it for gold by turning it into tonics or candies, or you could turn it into power by shoving it into a nexus. The only thing it wouldn't do (at least not directly) would be to turn into more artifacts.
    image
  • LuceLuce Fox Populi
    edited August 2016
    Except everyone and his sister seems to agree that the basic trap is unuseful?
  • If we do keep transfer tax, would it apply to credits I move to different characters?

    Suppose if I buy 500 for Kilee then move 300 to Issey would I still be taxed?
    Your numbers today are:
  • Basic trap is fine, just saying. Two of my traps are level 1 with level 4 contract.
    (I'm the mom of Hallifax btw, so if you are in Hallifax please call me mom.)

    == Professional Girl Gamer == 
    Yes I play games
    Yes I'm a girl
    get over it
  • I have 2 traps. 1 basic and 1 that I spent a while slowly upgrading.

    I have never thought my basic trap was not useful.
  • If there is to be a transfer tax on credits I suggest limiting it to the credits sold through the credit market. And this is mostly to ensure that credit market speculation does not happen. This is called a Tobin tax, and it's designed specifically to counter currency speculations and cushion the rate of fluctuations in exchange rate. The reason you want to keep the Tobin tax only on the credit market is because organizations can and should undercut the public credit market. While it may be possible to subvert the intent through private trades, I doubt that will be a huge problem. The general feel I've got from observing is that people will generally offer credit sales to friends at lower prices already before putting them out on the market. A Tobin tax will not make this any more prominent than it already is. And even if it is a problem, the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.

    Regarding the actual number. The real life initial estimate ballparked the number at 0.5% of sale price, but in real life there's also already several taxes, customs and other monetary loss factors, so I'll recommend something way higher. 1000 sovereigns per credit works well at the current exchange rates, and maps to about 2% of the asking price, since there's usually more credits for sale less than a thousand sovereigns above the current minimum price. If the market price shrinks, so too should the tax shrink down. Alternatively, just set it at 2% of the sale price. Either way, the market should probably be kept under observation
    Everyone is a genius. But if you judge a fish on its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.
  • The problem with each of these is that they're only a temporary solution. The primary problem is market equilibrium. Market equilibrium is point at which the supply curve and the demand curve intersect. Inflation is the result of a high market equilibrium. The market equilibrium increases whenever the quantity supplied is greater than the quantity demanded.

    This is why a RL economy has inflation whenever the Federal Reserve (in the case of the US) prints money. Purchasing RL credits are Lusternia's version of RL printing money. You're increasing the quantity of gold in the game without quantity demanded. The same thing occurs for bashing. You're increasing gold within the game without actually increasing the demand for gold. Bashing, at it's very root, discourages Lusternian trade and the economy system.

    As an example, why would I get a job, if I could just walk out onto the street and I found $10 every 100 feet I walked. It's generating money without having anything to demand the money. Now, I understand that this is the problem. This is why we need a "gold sink". However, a gold sink has never really worked for the sake of it a gold sink.

    The market equilibrium will only lower -if- the quantity demanded increases. A gold sink doesn't increase the quantity of gold demanded, it only decreases the quantity of gold supplied. Theoretically, decreasing the quantity of gold supplied will work, but a gold sink won't do it the way that you expect, and with the quickness that everyone desires.

    Increase the quantity of gold demanded. Right now, I don't have any solid ideas for this, and I've got to go to work for now, but I'm trying to help a perspective shift on the gold in Lusternia situation. It's not a "how do we get rid of gold" problem, it's a "How do we lower the market equilibrium" problem. Basic quantity supplied vs quantity demanded.  There is plenty supplied, now it only needs to be demanded.
  • Also, dust really do need a more exciting name. The only way it should keep the name "dust" is if it's part of "stardust", and even then it's still dust, and it probably feels too much like a Pokemon reference. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

    If we want a new pseudo-currency, especially one that's gonna show up in presents, we want one that feels nice to acquire. Something that seems rare and exotic and valuable. So here's a small list of proposed names.

    Domothean/Primal nuggets
    Astral seeds
    Powdered diamonut (especially nice if we're doing gnomish trade as a source of this dust)

    Everyone is a genius. But if you judge a fish on its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.
  • XenthosXenthos Shadow Lord
    I would probably start using my trap if it generated this dust and I could use it on goop-- slowly, but something to work on over time.  Way more attractive than what they currently do, to me.

    I do not like the cost of gold to raise shrines.  First off, you create more incentive to wreck shrines; if you destroy it fully, you are not just costing them a bit of time regathering corpses but are also actually sticking it to them financially.  Perhaps that itself is not too bad if all shrines were equally vulnerable, but they are not.  Some orgs can anchor multiple shrines on SMobs (the ones that aggro on entry) essentially making them invulnerable, while others can only do one.  This creates the potential for lopsided "conflict" that is used to grief rather than for any productive purpose.

    I also do not see a great need for discretionary / order gold costs.  What I foresee happening is this:
    1) Orgs stop giving out gold as prizes, choosing to hold onto it as a strategic resource.
    2) Orgs also kick gold into active orders so that they can pay for powers.
    3) Org credit sale prices will go way up (though this would help drain extra cash from the game it is not entirely terrible, but the cheap credits are a pretty good thing for newfolk).

    Net effect: Less gold available to players, and organizations have such a huge stockpile at this point that they can probably fund this for RL years, especially with the occasional high-priced credit sale.  We'd see little change in effect/use, but find our orgs being stingier about gold usage than they are.
    image
  • XenthosXenthos Shadow Lord
    In regards to dust "needing another name"... you do realize that we already have multiple forms of dust, right?  None of it stardust.  I have no clue what this has to do with pokemon, but they've been around for a while.
    image
  • PhoebusPhoebus tu fui, ego eris. Circumstances
    edited August 2016
    Regardless of if gold ends up being used for shrine powers or not, I would very much enjoy the ability to offer greater chunks of gold and for there to be a tithe log. I would probably drop some money on that just for the fun of it, and I only have about 2 million gold total.

    I mean, it's not like I offer corpses or esteem for any essence-related reason, as it is...just like the number to be bigger, sometimes favors happen, karma is nice. What the offering is used for is pretty much meaningless to me. >_>
  • LuceLuce Fox Populi
    Ceros: A gold sink specifically increases the quantity demanded, not supplied. 'sink' here refers to draining gold out of the economy.

    Some method of providing something highly desirable or necessary that requires the use of gold in such a way that it becomes permanently or long-term unavailable. Thus, less gold, and what gold remains will hold more value. We're not (really) talking about merely moving gold around, but destroying it entirely. Xenthos isn't buying a widget from Dylara and moving 5,000 gold from his hoard to hers, Xenthos is buying that widget from Estarra, and the 5,000 gold is being disintegrated to fuel Her giant gold-plated glitter golem garrison.
  • LuceLuce Fox Populi
    Xenthos said:
    In regards to dust "needing another name"... you do realize that we already have multiple forms of dust, right?  None of it stardust.  I have no clue what this has to do with pokemon, but they've been around for a while.
    Behold
  • Name suggestion: 'essence cores'.

    (Still reading rest of thread).
  • PhoebusPhoebus tu fui, ego eris. Circumstances
    Shedrin said:
    Name suggestion: 'essence cores'.

    (Still reading rest of thread).
    I don't want essence to be in the name at all. I was super confused about how many different things "essence" referred to when I was new. 
  • LuceLuce Fox Populi
    edited August 2016
    Aether cores? Fink Souls? Potential Crystals?

    EDIT actually, what about potentia/potentium.
  • SynkarinSynkarin Nothing to see here
    Xenthos said:
    I would probably start using my trap if it generated this dust and I could use it on goop-- slowly, but something to work on over time.  Way more attractive than what they currently do, to me.

    I do not like the cost of gold to raise shrines.  First off, you create more incentive to wreck shrines; if you destroy it fully, you are not just costing them a bit of time regathering corpses but are also actually sticking it to them financially.  Perhaps that itself is not too bad if all shrines were equally vulnerable, but they are not.  Some orgs can anchor multiple shrines on SMobs (the ones that aggro on entry) essentially making them invulnerable, while others can only do one.  This creates the potential for lopsided "conflict" that is used to grief rather than for any productive purpose.

    I also do not see a great need for discretionary / order gold costs.  What I foresee happening is this:
    1) Orgs stop giving out gold as prizes, choosing to hold onto it as a strategic resource.
    2) Orgs also kick gold into active orders so that they can pay for powers.
    3) Org credit sale prices will go way up (though this would help drain extra cash from the game it is not entirely terrible, but the cheap credits are a pretty good thing for newfolk).

    Net effect: Less gold available to players, and organizations have such a huge stockpile at this point that they can probably fund this for RL years, especially with the occasional high-priced credit sale.  We'd see little change in effect/use, but find our orgs being stingier about gold usage than they are.

    I disagree with this entirely. I think the benefit to increasing organizational costs vs individual costs is that the burden is then spread out among the population instead of just a few people who need to bash/hunt to get gold. I don't think it'll negatively affect the game as a whole. 

    Putting a cost for shrine raising may incentive defiling them, but it also incentives defending them and putting them up in places they are really needed rather than willy nilly all over the place. This combined with the removal of the cult power to sanctify shrines with cult essence would see move gold/esteem movement on this front, rather than spending from a pool of essence that's easily replaced by a quick hunt. 

    Everiine said:
    "'Cause the fighting don't stop till I walk in."
    -Synkarin's Lament.
  • edited August 2016
    Xenthos said:
    In regards to dust "needing another name"... you do realize that we already have multiple forms of dust, right?  None of it stardust.  I have no clue what this has to do with pokemon, but they've been around for a while.
    That's exactly why Estarra asked for suggestions for another name for dust in the first post of the thread.
    Everyone is a genius. But if you judge a fish on its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.
  • how about Nexus Fragment?
    The soft, hollow voice of Nocht, the Silent resounds within your mind as His words echo through the aether, "Congratulations, Arimisia. Your mastery of vermin cannot be disputed."

    image
  • PhoebusPhoebus tu fui, ego eris. Circumstances
    Beads/droplets of aetherdew? 
  • edited August 2016
    Incentives to destroy shrines rather than planting all over the place because reasons seems like a great idea to me. As it is, people just toss them up everwhere. I put a Shikari shrine in the waste facility however many years ago and it's still there. They really just don't do anything, basically free to put back up due to cults, and people ignore them for these reasons. 

    I think shrines could be reworked to provide (non pk) benefits for orders (like % increase in karma generation or essence offered based on number of shrines in the game for that order) at the cost of chunks of gold to raise/maintain them. 

    Shrines in specific areas could provide benefits to hunters there. Like a war shrine could add a 5% chance for a shouldercannon attack on mobs in that area or 5% more exp or something. Small things, but worth generating conflict over.

    (Yes some people will just grief the shrines, but it's a shrine)
  • domothean slivers?
  • LuceLuce Fox Populi
    Do we even want these to have a physical form? Or should they work like credits where you have a running total of them that's tracked automatically?

    If the latter, it'd be easy enough to just call it 'potential' or something similar and just not refer to an individual unit at all, similar to how we do karma or esteem. Or, hell, Splinter Roark and have the 'Roa' be a measurement of creative potential, similar to 'Newtons' or 'Joules'.
  • I'm not opposed to having discretionaries and shrine powers cost gold, but I think there should be inbuilt for orgs to raise gold and levy taxes besides credit sales or philanthropic donations.

    (Crazy?) idea: What if the gold throttle, once it kicked in, instead of just lowering the gold, the gold would go into the city/commune's account. And commercial governments increase the amount gained.
  • XenthosXenthos Shadow Lord
    /shrug.  I am entirely against a cost for putting up shrines in own-org territory (based on my example above).  I do not harbour particularly strong feelings about non-org territory as it is more balanced / equal (so if you want to compromise, just put the gold cost on shrines put up elsewhere).

    PS: Didn't they remove the ability to erect war shrines outside of org territory, Celina?
    image
  • As others have said, the transfer tax I think is a bad idea, including taxing it on market credits ( As someone who only sells on the market, and it being the a majority of my gold)

    As for other ideas...

    Able to use the dust on customizations (1000 dust = 5 credits, using the 1000dust/goop? so 10K dust for a basic customization)
    Depending how much dust is going to be generated - maybe allow buying of demipowers with dust instead of essence?
    Offering it to gods (I don't know what would be a good rate here. 100dust= 100K essence?)
    Use dust to increase the weather protection of armor/clothing for hot or cold weather for X time? (not sure if this is even possible or if anyone would use it.)
  • Xenthos said:
    /shrug.  I am entirely against a cost for putting up shrines in own-org territory (based on my example above).  I do not harbour particularly strong feelings about non-org territory as it is more balanced / equal (so if you want to compromise, just put the gold cost on shrines put up elsewhere).

    PS: Didn't they remove the ability to erect war shrines outside of org territory, Celina?
    I don't care for fortress mechanics personally, but if they want to waive shrine costs in org I don't see a problem with that. Shouldn't be an issue.

    Yeah. So healing/shield can provide benefits. 
This discussion has been closed.