Economy Changes Overview

OraelOrael Member, Administrator, Moderator, Gods Posts: 475 Creator
edited April 27 in Ideas
Here it is, the much-anticipated plan for what we're going to do with the economy. 

This plan is large, it's expansive and it covers a lot. It's going to cover more than just this one thread, so please be patient as I write up the proposals for the more in-depth things listed here. This part will give a general overview of our goals, the plans, and how they achieve our goals. We'll also list some miscellaneous things that don't really fit elsewhere here.

Goals

  1. Address the commodity issue.
  2. Ensure supplies are readily available for anyone, especially newbies
  3. Ensure that players can participate in as much or as little as they want.
  4. Make Trading/Merchantile something worthwhile that you can potentially earn money at
Pretty straightforward.

The Plan

This isn't going to be straightforward. Here we'll address a few general points.

Trades - A more in-depth proposal found here: https://forums.lusternia.com/discussion/4422/economy-trade-revamp/p1.
  • We will introduce two new trade skillsets, Prospecting and Agriculture. These skillsets will primarily generate commodities in various fashion, more in-depth proposals to be linked in separate threads
  • We will be removing lesson costs (and refunding lessons) on all trade skills. They will instead rely on a new mechanic called proficiency. Proficiency is gained by performing the trade
  • Players will only be allowed two trade skills active at once.
  • Skillflexing between trade skills will cause you to lose all proficiency.
  • All trades will be able to sell their wares/services in a shop.
  • All mechanical benefits from selecting a trade will be removed (Trans items and skills that give the trader something)
Shops - More in-depth proposal coming in a separate thread
  • We will be setting up an NPC village of shopkeepers that will have all items/services for sale so anyone can access them
  • NPC's will sell and buy comms/goods
  • Players will be able to sell both goods and services from their shops (per the above)
  • Players will be able to select certain from cartels to sell that will automatically be made for the buyer at the seller's proficiency level. 
Villages 
  • Fix current issues with commodity quests, ensure things are more even throughout various villages and standardize how they function to make changes easier and more consistent in the future.
  • Look at Commercial governments and make it more viable
  • We will be removing receiving a comm when doing a commodity quest
Misc Changes
  • Artifact Runes will be free to change and move between items, pliers will be retired. This is to encourage players to change up their items and looks
  • Aethertrading will be removed, we will consider another way to gain anomalies but we want to remove any mechanical reasons players select one trade over another.
  • All riftable items will be made to decay outside of rifts (they will not decay in rifts, either personal or shop rifts)
  • Gold drops from mobs will be removed, Questing gold and turn-ins will still give gold
  • Org stockpiles will have a cap (200k comms)
  • Remove Sticky goop as a thing
  • Potentially retire crucible curios - we may leave this, for now, to see how they work with things.

How these solutions achieve our goals

Goal 1: Adding two additional trade skills that directly generate the commodities as well as shoring up village weaknesses and ensuring that villages are more even and fair in their commodity production should resolve any shortage issues.

Goal 2: Expanding the shop system to include everything from trades and creating NPC traders will ensure that players will always be able to get what they need when they need it. Everything will be available at all times.

Goal 3: See above, having player and NPC shops sell things means that players that don't want to be forced into engaging in the economy can simply purchase from a shop and go about their day. If you want to engage more and design or have special items made for you etc, you can freely engage with others or specialize yourself.

Goal 4:  One of the key components to make trading/merchant game playing style viable is needing to have players participate or engage in the economy. An antithesis to this is players being self-sufficient and being able to do everything themselves. By adding proficiencies to trades and encouraging players to specialize in 1-2 trades, we are making it more difficult and costlier to be self-sufficient. By doing so, we're encouraging players to participate in the economy, even if it's just going to a player shop to get what you need and move on. We are not removing the ability to be self-sufficient, but we are not encouraging it either. Additionally, by removing the lesson costs, we're allowing players to start making money right away rather than needing to invest in it, to begin with. Becoming proficient in a trade skill will make it faster/easier/more cost-effective to sell goods and perform services than those that are not proficient.

 One note is that the proficiency system does prevent players from realistically becoming all-around merchants that can do every trade skill, which can be considered antithetical to Goal 4. Unfortunately, we do not think there is any way around that, in order to make trading/merchant playstyle worthwhile, we need to encourage players to participate in the economy, whether it's through shops or other means and we are not able to have a situation where players can be the all-around trade guru but not self-sufficient.

Post edited by Orael on
«1

Comments

  • AeldraAeldra , using cake powered flight Member Posts: 1,311 Transcendent
    Orael said:
    Goals
    1. Address the commodity issue.
    2. Ensure supplies are readily available for anyone, especially newbies
    3. Ensure that players can participate in as much or as little as they want.
    4. Make Trading/Merchantile something worthwhile that you can potentially earn money at
    Pretty straightforward.


    These goals sound like a good start and something that could really enhance the game market. I think it probably is a lot more difficult then it sounds, though.

    Orael said:
    Shops - More in-depth proposal coming in a separate thread
    • We will be setting up an NPC village of shopkeepers that will have all items/services for sale so anyone can access them
    • NPC's will sell and buy comms/goods
    • Players will be able to sell both goods and services from their shops (per the above)
    • Players will be able to select certain from cartels to sell that will automatically be made for the buyer at the seller's proficiency level.

    I love the idea of being able to sell everything from your shop. Tracking down trader with skill X is one of the most frustrating things I can imagine. The only thing where I see this to remain a problem is with skillsets that rely heavily upon designs that you're going to have for quite a while ( e. g. tailors and similar ). It would maybe be great to have a way to leave an order at a shop for something, though I suppose thats something we players can solve. Having the ability to get everything you need ( given well enough stocked shops ) will be a boon for newbies.  If am reading this right, this is no longer "looking for a X" call on market for just basic things like getting your hands on an avarice enchantment.

    Orael said:
    Villages 
    • Fix current issues with commodity quests, ensure things are more even throughout various villages and standardize how they function to make changes easier and more consistent in the future.
    • Look at Commercial governments and make it more viable
    • We will be removing receiving a comm when doing a commodity quest
    Hm. My main gripe with this is, how village revolts generally are very lopsided to begin with. There's often been a lopsides in villages to a large degree and to who had enough people to claim the majority of them. I understand that the goal of agriculture and prospecting is to make it so you no longer have to rely onto villages as much, but removing the commodity rewards from commodity quests will also now remove the chance for someone from an somewhat opposing org to run the commodity quest if they urgently need anything for their trades.

    Orael said:
    Misc Changes
    • Artifact Runes will be free to change and move between items, pliers will be retired. This is to encourage players to change up their items and looks
    • Aethertrading will be removed, we will consider another way to gain anomalies but we want to remove any mechanical reasons players select one trade over another.
    • All riftable items will be made to decay outside of rifts (they will not decay in rifts, either personal or shop rifts)
    • Gold drops from mobs will be removed, Questing gold and turn-ins will still give gold
    • Org stockpiles will have a cap (200k comms)
    • Remove Sticky goop as a thing
    • Potentially retire crucible curios - we may leave this, for now, to see how they work with things.

    RIP Pliers, I think we're all glad to see them gone. Not being able to change the design of X just because you had put your rune of Y on it was always been a hassle. Being able to move runes around will be a major boon for flexibility on things.

    As for aethertrading being removed, I want to highlight large issues here: It was both a source of goop and gold for a good deal of people who went to use it and especially for new players it was an easy way to get their hands on some basic artifacts that would get them started on PvP as well (relatively cheap way to get a nose, etc ). It also allowed people to get their hands on consumable's more reliably and as such those buffs saw a a lot more use. I suspect that with goop effectively being removed as a renewable resource, you'll see a huge plummet in the use of aethercandies, aetherbuttons and the like and they become once again a thing only to be used by the richest few percent of the playerbase... I feel this is not something that you would want and would suggest considering a replacement mechanic that still allows people to gain goop (just as they can gain dailycredits).

    There's a good deal of people who enjoyed bashing for gold, but as most gold could only really be made by tradeins, I don't think that will be a real issue.

    Orael said:
    Goal 4: One of the key components to make trading/merchant game playing style viable is needing to have players participate or engage in the economy. An antithesis to this is players being self-sufficient and being able to do everything themselves. By adding proficiencies to trades and encouraging players to specialize in 1-2 trades, we are making it more difficult and costlier to be self-sufficient. By doing so, we're encouraging players to participate in the economy, even if it's just going to a player shop to get what you need and move on. We are not removing the ability to be self-sufficient, but we are not encouraging it either. Additionally, by removing the lesson costs, we're allowing players to start making money right away rather than needing to invest in it, to begin with. Becoming proficient in a trade skill will make it faster/easier/more cost-effective to sell goods and perform services than those that are not proficient.
    Will make my main comments on the tradeskill thread, but this change fills me with a lot of sadness. Half of my joy of shopkeeping was from being able to provide the items that were around very scarce and I don't see myself being able to do that anymore. I don't argue that it may be a needed change, still this one is going to be rough.

    Avatar / Picture done by Xeii. Wheeeeee 
  • SapphiraSapphira Member Posts: 186 Expert
    So question, how will average joe make gold these days? Tradeins really are a pittance unless you do an awful lot - like all the keph in a run or something, (and good luck finding them alive a lot of the time). Will the new skillsets take up trade slots? Will prospecting/farming earn daily credits? At least at the moment you can pick up a bit of gold while hunting for your dailies, or begging, killing two birds with one stone. Most quests only give out a pittance. As someone who currently has a lot of gold already this is less personal panic and more wondering if actually we're going to make it more costly for newbies to get what they need, or force them to spend a lot of time grinding for comms to sell. 

    Can't help but feel like a system that was presumably going to be opt-in may become necessary for people, not for trade buffs but for new people who aren't equipped and rich to -have- to sell wares to make money to spend.
  • ArixArix Member Posts: 1,453 Transcendent
    if removed, how would crucible curios be refunded?
  • JolantheJolanthe Member Posts: 641 Mythical
    Aeldra said:
    Hm. My main gripe with this is, how village revolts generally are very lopsided to begin with. There's often been a lopsides in villages to a large degree and to who had enough people to claim the majority of them. I understand that the goal of agriculture and prospecting is to make it so you no longer have to rely onto villages as much, but removing the commodity rewards from commodity quests will also now remove the chance for someone from an somewhat opposing org to run the commodity quest if they urgently need anything for their trades.

    In my opinion, this can be counterbalanced by having some means and methods of gaining commodities instead outside of villages. The Tolborolla questline to gain silk spinnerets can just allow you to rift those spinnerets if you like (which might have the interesting application of allowing you to circumvent part of the grinding process of that quest if you can just store silk for later or bring it from a village instead). Could generate meat, milk, and eggs in the Gourmet Alley (Is that what we're calling it these days instead? Wherever the place with Crumkane's realm entrance is). Getting gold and commodities at the same time in villages has always been a bit lopsided while also only being particularly profitable for people who are largely self-sufficient and able to make full use of each commodity they produce as well as gold.

    Then the only reason to turn in at villages would be to help fill the controlling org's holdings. This would also add a more competitive aspect to things, since players in orgs without villages would still have incentives to do commodity quests - it would just be for themselves rather than rolling into their trade ministry.

  • CheliyiCheliyi Member Posts: 33 Capable
    As for aethertrading being removed, I want to highlight large issues here: It was both a source of goop and gold for a good deal of people who went to use it and especially for new players it was an easy way to get their hands on some basic artifacts that would get them started on PvP as well (relatively cheap way to get a nose, etc ). It also allowed people to get their hands on consumable's more reliably and as such those buffs saw a a lot more use. I suspect that with goop effectively being removed as a renewable resource, you'll see a huge plummet in the use of aethercandies, aetherbuttons and the like and they become once again a thing only to be used by the richest few percent of the playerbase... I feel this is not something that you would want and would suggest considering a replacement mechanic that still allows people to gain goop (just as they can gain dailycredits).
    I also agree with Aeldra on this, aethertrading was basically one of my only ways to potentially gain IG currency for things like gnomeweapons and other aethergoop only items, since I can't really spend money on Lusternia. It would be really helpful if there was a daily-goop system, so that people can still purchase combat items. Either that, or allow most goop-only combat items to be paid for in credits.
    Cheliyi squints. Hesitantly, she asks, "Does He need pants?"
  • LuceLuce Fox Populi Member Posts: 2,623 Transcendent
    Sapphira said:
    So question, how will average joe make gold these days? Tradeins really are a pittance unless you do an awful lot - like all the keph in a run or something, (and good luck finding them alive a lot of the time).
    I feel like this might be a case of quest and turn-in gold needing a look-over, and also of needing to make sure most mobs have a turn-in. This will make avaricehorn useless, but I don't remember seeing Tinkering in the other thread at all, so it may be on the block as a whole. Gold-from-mobs has always felt a little immersion-stretching to begin with, but also clearing out ALL of the Krokani tower (for instance) never really netted more than turning in one or two krokani so I don't feel like it'll hit all that hard except in areas with mobs that didn't have a turn-in, or whose turn-ins don't automatically give gold.

  • DysDys Member Posts: 707 Fabled
    edited April 27
    Muh floor gold! :'(

    Though it does mean I'll lose the pang of disappointment I get when astral insanity gold piles aren't real, because there'll almost never be gold on the floor any more.
  • SaranSaran Member Posts: 2,416 Transcendent
    Luce said:
    Sapphira said:
    So question, how will average joe make gold these days? Tradeins really are a pittance unless you do an awful lot - like all the keph in a run or something, (and good luck finding them alive a lot of the time).
    I feel like this might be a case of quest and turn-in gold needing a look-over, and also of needing to make sure most mobs have a turn-in. This will make avaricehorn useless, but I don't remember seeing Tinkering in the other thread at all, so it may be on the block as a whole. Gold-from-mobs has always felt a little immersion-stretching to begin with, but also clearing out ALL of the Krokani tower (for instance) never really netted more than turning in one or two krokani so I don't feel like it'll hit all that hard except in areas with mobs that didn't have a turn-in, or whose turn-ins don't automatically give gold.

    With the new village along with Agriculture and Prospecting, I wonder if there'll be a space for those to be a more profit generating activity. 

    Like if the floor for their value is high enough that it could be worthwhile and just mine for a bit for pure profit.
  • ZagreusZagreus Member Posts: 861 Transcendent
    edited April 28
    Orael said:
    • All mechanical benefits from selecting a trade will be removed (Trans items and skills that give the trader something)
    I vehemently disagree with this part of removing them from the game. Trans skills gave flavor, combat help, unique choices, and things people actually wanted in most of those skillsets. I'll try to keep analysis and an alternative idea brief...

    PVP trans tradeskills

    Lowmagic locked
    Lorecraft Philsopherstone
    Herbs Herblore
    Poisons Immunity

    Highmagic locked
    Spellcraft MagiCrown
    Tinkering RoseGlasses 

    Open to either
    Cooking HeroFete
    Tailoring Splendour
    Tattoos Tattoomaster
    Forging MasterArmour

    Not too useful and/or non-PVP 
    Jewellery Tierstone
    Brewmeister TeaCeremony
    Artisan Prized
    Bookbinding MagicTome
    ---------------------------

    Step 1 - Fold armour tradeskills into class skillsets or set as class baselines

    Pretty much every combatant has the buffed armour value, so this is preventing a game-wide armour nerf resulting in even more damage stacking. 3 of the 4 open to either low/highmagic skillsets worth having for PVP are armour bonuses. Those bonuses should absolutely be made the baseline for those classes (splendour for any robe wearer, tattoomaster for non-armour monks, and masterarmour for all warriors), and herofete is accessible by wondercorn anyway. If not the skill, just increase the baseline with those classes in mind. A great example of why this must happen is the case of warriors. Warriors cannot wield shield or shield runed items, so a physical class is worse at blocking physical damage than every non-physical class in the game... With MasterArmour it balances out, but without it is obviously ridiculous since classes are designed to be strong against themselves, and certainly not -worse- (notice how the vitals buffs vary based on class).

    Step 2 - Unlock all trades/tradeskill trans items to all (could even be moved to a common skillset), but limit to 2 active at once so it's not overpowered. Some of those abilities are quite strong, and losing them is harsh and unwarranted. If you limit to 2 it should be fine, and preserves a system of tradeoffs since you can't have it all.

    Simple, safe, no one gets gooseknifed.
    image
  • SaranSaran Member Posts: 2,416 Transcendent
    Zagreus said:
    Step 2 - Unlock all trades/tradeskill trans items to all (could even be moved to a common skillset), but limit to 2 active at once so it's not overpowered. Some of those abilities are quite strong, and losing them is harsh and unwarranted. If you limit to 2 it should be fine, and preserves a system of tradeoffs since you can't have it all.

    Simple, safe, no one gets gooseknifed.
    I mentioned this in the other thread but I think instead of this we could fold these effects/items/etc into guilds somehow so that they can be available and we can repurpose them as benefits for guild engagement.

    It could mean you have to participate in guilds, but that also helps guilds.
  • SaranSaran Member Posts: 2,416 Transcendent
    edited April 28
    Luce said:
    I don't think forced guild participation is a good idea at all. Yes it's unfortunate that guild populations are very feast or famine, and yes, it's unfortunate that there's a pool of people that opt out of guilds entirely, but tying mechanical benefits behind guilds so that players feel forced into a guild for those benefits wouldn't necessarily create more guild engagement, it'll just mean that the apathetic people are apethetic but with overhead now.
    The validity of mechanical benefits for guilds is kinda a separate subject if you're going beyond ways to potentially repurpose trade stuff.

    However, guilds basically have less mechanical benefits to them than a family which is less than an order. But guilds are probably the first of those three a newbie is going to engage in and when they're dead that can lead to retention issues.

    Secondly, there are varyings ways things like this can be implemented.

    Guilds could get an item or the like that lets their members perform a skinned herofete/teaceremony, for example. Those who opt out can still get fetes through wondercorns while guilds that go for them might have the current benefits of being a cook with a wondercorn if they've got both.

    Other ideas have been around being able to craft and share these buffs.
    You could create a blessing mechanism that allows guild members to like... bless targets with immunity or herblore.
    Everyone can access the benefits by getting someone in a guild to give them the blessing, it's just the channel. If there was a concern about splitting them between different guilds you could also see if just giving all guilds all/most of the blessings and just making them different skins so it's just... a neat thing you can offer org mates.
  • EritheylEritheyl ** Trigger Warning ** Member Posts: 1,811 Transcendent
    New things for guilds is fine, I'd make a new thread after you've said your piece here about it though.
    Crumkane, Lord of Epicurean Delights says, "WAS IT INDEED ON FIRE, ERITHEYL."

    -

    With a deep reverb, Contemptible Sutekh says, "CEASE YOUR INFERNAL ENERGY, ERITHEYL."
  • SaranSaran Member Posts: 2,416 Transcendent
    Eritheyl said:
    New things for guilds is fine, I'd make a new thread after you've said your piece here about it though.
    *shrug* threads have been made quite a few times, project is on the star map, and the comments were on how things being lost in the revamp could be reimplemented which becomes an efficiency consideration for the project.

    If people want to argue that guilds shouldn't get benefits, you're more than welcome to start that conversation yourself.
  • EritheylEritheyl ** Trigger Warning ** Member Posts: 1,811 Transcendent
    edited April 28
    No one is arguing that, finger off the trigger please. I'm just asking you to take guild stuff to a guild thread - we're here for the economy, not the offshoots of what to do with X afterwards. That's all.
    Crumkane, Lord of Epicurean Delights says, "WAS IT INDEED ON FIRE, ERITHEYL."

    -

    With a deep reverb, Contemptible Sutekh says, "CEASE YOUR INFERNAL ENERGY, ERITHEYL."
  • SaranSaran Member Posts: 2,416 Transcendent
    Eritheyl said:
    No one is arguing that, finger off the trigger please. I'm just asking you to take guild stuff to a guild thread - we're here for the economy, not the offshoots of what to do with X afterwards. That's all.
    Luce's post, which you've agree'd with, rather explicitly is. Zagreus' post is talking about what to do with these orphaned things afterwards.

    My post just saying we might be able to use it in another star map project is not where this line of conversation went off topic.

    If these benefits are repurposed within the revamp purely to ensure they're still around we lose the opportunity to do so in other systems which might also benefit. And potentially spend more time on this revamp trying to handle things that could be dealt with later.
  • EritheylEritheyl ** Trigger Warning ** Member Posts: 1,811 Transcendent
    ok.
    Crumkane, Lord of Epicurean Delights says, "WAS IT INDEED ON FIRE, ERITHEYL."

    -

    With a deep reverb, Contemptible Sutekh says, "CEASE YOUR INFERNAL ENERGY, ERITHEYL."
  • SapphiraSapphira Member Posts: 186 Expert
    On the splitting alchemy/cooking/brewmeister - i love in theory being able to expand trades, add new trades (floristry and perfumes when?), but by the same token, knowing that we'd be limited to two slots is exceptionally painful. Especially if we want to make use of the new skills to collect commodities to boost our own craft. 

    i strongly believe that a lot of current shops are stocked by people who have multiple trades. Proposing punishment for being self-sufficient, finally picking up those elusive once-gated trades and wanting to craft your own things may well end up resulting in a lot of currently well-rounded shops being mostly empty. Most often i would flex a trade to make a certain thing i or someone needed, then make some extra things for my shops while i was there to meet a need. NPC shops filling gaps where items were hard to get is GREAT but i don't see, still, why it is impossible to allow self-sufficiency. People who currently have trades for the trans perk that never respond to market calls looking for items or stock shops because they have no interest are not going to magically develop an interest in stocking a shop or making their services available to people. A lot of trade-flexers are the only reason the system has stayed alive, when you hear how many of us flex JUST to help someone who needs something. Choose the rp or the mechanics (in this case, profit) as it's still very obvious not all trades are created equal in terms of making money. Someone with herbs or alchemy will always make more than an artisan, so someone who enjoys being crafty but likes to make money will have to make a sacrifice, and that feels so backward to making trades freely available to everyone.
  • LysandusLysandus Member Posts: 17 Apprentice
    edited April 29
    If the purpose of the proficiency system is to use less comms as you gain proficiency, then may I suggest what we have now be the basis of having 0 proficiency minus the artifacts, curios and demipowers. So if I still want to bake that spice pie, I still need 10 spices, not 50 because I have 0 proficiency. If I want to bake spice pies with half of the comms, I'd grind it. This way, people has access to all the trades without worrying they have to use up 10x more comms cause of 0 proficiency. This is assuming you will still push through with it. I don't like it though but this is the best solution I can come up so far if we are heading towards that direction

    This should also solve the issue of players who just want to design and share them to the world without getting hurt by the changes.

    Edit: if acquiring spices is still by chance despite the new agriculture/prospector skillsets, no thanks and I'd suggest keep the commodity requirements the same.
  • LysandusLysandus Member Posts: 17 Apprentice
    edited April 29
    Also, for the changes to armour, add them as passives based on the class. Warriors get masterarmour, guardians/druids/mages get splendourarmour, bards and monks get tattoo armour. Tailoring Knots and Tattoos can help buff whatever resistances they need along with artifacts

    For the loss other trans skills like magictome, herblore, etc. Here are some of my suggestions:

    1. Artifacts - it can be done, anyone can buy them via money or daily credits
    2. A skill similar to AB Beastmastery Beastmaster, except you can switch anytime for 10 power. Switching to another specialize item/skill will let you lose them
    3. Chosen Passives - Mages/Guardians get Tierstone and Magictome, Warriors and monks get Immunity, Druids get Herblore etc. (bad idea but just throwing it out there)

    As for goop:

    Remove them, convert them to credits. If you still want to keep them, I advise having an NPC give out daily quests by ordering a number of items that rewards you if you fulfil that order for goop.
  • JolantheJolanthe Member Posts: 641 Mythical
    edited April 29
    Lysandus said:
    guardians/druids/mages get splendourarmour, bards and monks get tattoo armour
    If you do this, could then just roll splendour patterns into the greatrobe category (or if you still want to keep them categorically different, allow splendours to be mended endlessly without ever going tawdry). That way the "splendourarmour" bonus can apply to both greatrobe and splendour patterns alike.
  • LysandusLysandus Member Posts: 17 Apprentice
    edited April 29
    The idea behind this is because it shouldn't be tied to an item now, it will look silly if I'm wearing tawdry clothes but it still acts like a splendour robes. We're talking about 25%/18%/16% armor passive or something. Or maybe you can just wear the appropriate item to unlock the armor buff
  • SaranSaran Member Posts: 2,416 Transcendent
    Lysandus said:
    Also, for the changes to armour, add them as passives based on the class. Warriors get masterarmour, guardians/druids/mages get splendourarmour, bards and monks get tattoo armour. Tailoring Knots and Tattoos can help buff whatever resistances they need along with artifacts
    A skill that's like "while wearing X type armour, you have Y% reduction" would be neat. For theme it'd also be pretty cool to consider the classes.

    Mostly because it'd be kinda cool for Stag followers to be able to wear leather or robes and have them give them same reduction cause stag magic. Celestines being able to choose between robes and forged armour, etc
  • IsserIsser Member Posts: 29 Inept
    edited April 30
    I disagree with the proposal that gold drops should be removed. This will hurt the new players before all the easy to reach and viable quest turn ins will be heavily used by everyone with better skills and artifacts. Instead tie gold drop restrictions to levels. It is already difficult as a newbie to get gold. PLease don't penalize them. I like to state for the record that not everyone can buy credits and artifacts to solve the problem. Somethings the currency conversion does not work in the player's favor. (USD to their local currency).
  • IsserIsser Member Posts: 29 Inept
    I think players being self sufficient in trades evolved as a need because of our low population numbers.  It would be harder to find a craftsperson with the trade you need to make a thing who is awake and willing  to craft during the times you play. With out low population numbers it's usually boils down to one or two people within each commune. five if you have an unusually high population active amongst that time.

    If that goes away, it will be difficult to stock up on basic equipment for new players.

    participating within this system should be Opt-in and not forced.
  • KerithKerith Member Posts: 286 Gifted
    Isser said:
    I think players being self sufficient in trades evolved as a need because of our low population numbers.  It would be harder to find a craftsperson with the trade you need to make a thing who is awake and willing  to craft during the times you play. With out low population numbers it's usually boils down to one or two people within each commune. five if you have an unusually high population active amongst that time.

    If that goes away, it will be difficult to stock up on basic equipment for new players.

    participating within this system should be Opt-in and not forced.
    That's exactly why they're making it so you can stock everything -- even services -- in shops, so that you don't have to worry about finding someone awake at the same time as you.
Sign In or Register to comment.