Best Of
Re: Upcoming Economy Rework and Goals
Orael said:As everyone is aware - one of our upcoming goals is to focus on the economy and re-working how it functions. The first part of this is really on us, which is to dig deep and determine how the mechanics of it function.
We're digging into the following:- aethergoop generation and sinks- commodities production and sinks- gold generation and sinks
The one thing that we still need to determine is what the eventual goals of this should be. Obviously commodity production is one of the big player concerns, but we wanted to open up this thread to give you, the players, a chance to give your input,
What would you like to see when we begin to tackle the economy?
No, it wasn't. Give your input != want your solutions.
Jatius
1
Re: Upcoming Economy Rework and Goals
We're wasting our breath offering solution ideas when it's now clear that was never welcome.
For all the original producer's faults, she never would have treated her players/customers this way when they tried to help solve problems they didn't even create.
For all the original producer's faults, she never would have treated her players/customers this way when they tried to help solve problems they didn't even create.
Kerith
3
Re: Newbie Difficulties/Troubles/Concerns
I have to agree that a cheaper subscription option (with proportionally less credits/lessons/etc) would make me more inclined to keep a subscription going longer-term instead of cancelling it.
Aypatea
2
Re: Newbie Difficulties/Troubles/Concerns
Thanks so much Moi!
Here are some more newbie pros & cons.
Pros
Here are some more newbie pros & cons.
Pros
- Creation is fast and snappy, tho I do miss the part about fighting my own shadow, and also the waaaaay old part about exploring Shallach
- I love how the finks and gnomes in Newton are textured (raiders as well as children and civilians) and regularly interacting with each other
- The alternate influence mechanic is fantastic
- The help files are perfect – blessedly short but very informative
- Room descriptions are so detailed and interesting to read. It's flat out fun to pause and read the scenery
- Creatures consistently behave in fascinating ways. Rocs will grab you, you'll get pulled into pits, cows bump into you, guardians will turn their heads to watch you, animals periodically make noises, etc. Hugely immersive mob behaviors
- Consistently, quests (and honours quests basically always) require you to do WAY more than just bashing. I love figuring out quests, using my mind, pulling out a pen and pencil. I love that there are no walkthroughs, so achievements feel very earned
- In general, demonstrating game mechanics by making players DO them rather than telling them what to do is a billion times more effective. Lots of text games lose me in lectures and essentially movie montages where I barely have agency. Lusternia is really good at keeping you both mentally engaged and frantically typing as the burden is on you to act so that your story and your world's story can progress
- The NUANCE in creation and rp is epic. The sheer variety and customization of races and places is BADASS. I hate how other games will gender-lock races/stats, or offer only very stereotypical and pretty racist Tolkien races, binary alignments… Right from the start I was obsessed with the way Lusternia made me feel anything was possible, and made me want to try out all the different races and cities/communes
- Guild communities are so welcoming and immersive
Cons
- I did not understand how to tell the difference btw class skills usable for PK and NOT for mobs, usable for mobs and NOT for PK, or usable for both. This is crucial info in choosing the right class for your gaming style, so it should be provided during creation imo
- Took me a long time to realize influence was an option for ALL mobs outside of the specific influence quest for my Collegium. Also, it’s very rare to have influence as a quest component outside of Newton. Having more influence-only quests (or quest steps) in Newton, and in general, would be great. I remember there was one in Newton years ago when I first played (was it with a guy named Ben?), but it was really basic
Newbie/budget subscription idea
From what I've seen and heard, I'm positive a good chunk of beginners in MUDs are in high school or college. The No-Brainer packages are awesome, but possibly a more accessible option for monthly membership could also be a great way to hook beginners and literally give them an investment in sticking around, voting for IRE, and improving the community. A cheaper, lower rewards alternative to $300/yr, such as (brainstorming here) just one lesson per daily login costing no more than $45 a year, would be greatly appreciated.
Devora
3
Re: Upcoming Economy Rework and Goals
More on the future implementation side, I think the ic drivers for this are why I lean more towards slightly more specific/atomised currencies/materials/comms/etc.
Fairly sure I've mentioned the idea already, but it just seems simpler overall if we had "org/guild comms" which we use for all org/guild level stuff like research and constructs because then it basically becomes a currency for dealing with that stuff and the impacts of any choices that need to be made on how to spend them are limited to that scope.
You'd also be able to balance generation and the like more closely, so scacity might mean that it's trivial for each org to get around enough to maintain their projects every year but you'd need a bit more engagement for every additional construct. Maybe there's even a point where if you've held three for a while it might put a strain on that resource that makes you consider if you need to drop it for a bit, maybe there's other optional recurring costs once you're through the progression phase of research such as patron requests.
Also, as it's within a more narrowly defined scope, none of those org level things would really impact players on the individual level of "I can't get equipment", "I can't decorate my manse", etc. There would likely still be things orgs are managing that do impact players on that level as well, of course, but those could then also be managed within their own scope of that stuff.
Anomalies are an example really. It's pretty easy to manage because you know how many you need each year, how many you'd want to build up (progression phase) or store (maintenance phase / "just in case we need to rebuild it"), and how many you need/want to expend for time wind or other buffs. They provide an incentive to participate in quakes and you can work around that or acquire more with refinement. Even the active powers, mostly, seem more effective when managed on an org level rather than by individuals (who can acquire noms for individual use through trading). But the impact of not having anomalies is also limited to their specific scope.
Fairly sure I've mentioned the idea already, but it just seems simpler overall if we had "org/guild comms" which we use for all org/guild level stuff like research and constructs because then it basically becomes a currency for dealing with that stuff and the impacts of any choices that need to be made on how to spend them are limited to that scope.
You'd also be able to balance generation and the like more closely, so scacity might mean that it's trivial for each org to get around enough to maintain their projects every year but you'd need a bit more engagement for every additional construct. Maybe there's even a point where if you've held three for a while it might put a strain on that resource that makes you consider if you need to drop it for a bit, maybe there's other optional recurring costs once you're through the progression phase of research such as patron requests.
Also, as it's within a more narrowly defined scope, none of those org level things would really impact players on the individual level of "I can't get equipment", "I can't decorate my manse", etc. There would likely still be things orgs are managing that do impact players on that level as well, of course, but those could then also be managed within their own scope of that stuff.
Anomalies are an example really. It's pretty easy to manage because you know how many you need each year, how many you'd want to build up (progression phase) or store (maintenance phase / "just in case we need to rebuild it"), and how many you need/want to expend for time wind or other buffs. They provide an incentive to participate in quakes and you can work around that or acquire more with refinement. Even the active powers, mostly, seem more effective when managed on an org level rather than by individuals (who can acquire noms for individual use through trading). But the impact of not having anomalies is also limited to their specific scope.
Saran
2
Re: Upcoming Economy Rework and Goals
Orael said:No, I'm not willing to retract or apologize for the prerogative statement. I can understand your reasoning while also disagreeing with it. As I said, we're going to be addressing it.
As I said before, I don't want to engage in a debate about it, so I'm not going to.
You can disagree with it, but you have no right to dictate our feelings about it and dismiss those feelings as if they are entirely irrelevant to you. "Prerogative," indeed.
At some point here you're going to learn how to be more flexible as a customer relations face, if you're going to remain in that role. You do this dismissive statement thing very regularly. You could simply have said "We understand what you're feeling and we're working to address it," but instead you went out of your way to tack on this other stuff for no reason. I simply don't get it.
Xenthos
2
Re: Upcoming Economy Rework and Goals
It is the administration's job to ensure that organizations feel that they have enough to handle required upkeep as well as making resources available for necessary day-to-day needs, because when the two are competing, day to day tasks lose (and players do too).
You're the ones who made this sink in the first place, it's incredibly unreasonable to then point at players and say they're the ones to blame for the result... when the sink was never even needed in the first place. 
Edit: And before you say "Just skip upkeep a bit," look at the costs for upgrading. Missing upkeep means you burn insane amounts of resources. The cost has been sunk, and we are required to keep sinking it to avoid an even greater loss.
Xenthos
1
Re: Upcoming Economy Rework and Goals
Just nixing comm upkeep costs for researches while reviewing this would be nice - this thread has been up a while now, and that feels like it would be a pretty simple modification that would at least do something beneficial for everyone.
Xenthos
1
Re: Upcoming Economy Rework and Goals
At this point, I'm more interested in biting the bullet and seeing how things pan out. The suspense is what gets to everyone more so, imo
Jolanthe
2
(c) Iron Realms Entertainment 2012.