Make in-store items purchasable with tokens

[loleznub]

This contradicts with existence of people preferring such changes. Anyone who prefers one of two has his mind affected by the difference obviously, even if declares otherwise verbally.

No, it doesn't.. This statement of mine makes your original argument that the drawbacks of making tokens have more uses (store credit redeemable), or the addition of vouchers (new items that give store credit) false. It's really that simple.

My point was that there wouldn't be any additional drawbacks than there already are.

Let me hear your thought on this scenario, then, since you're so set on saying no:

Scenario:

Nooblet A has found an untouched bat guano pile with 35 pieces of guano available for harvest. They harvest all the pieces and set them in their wooden crates. They peruse the forums, looking to trade them for verification of their account and a handful of subscription tokens so they can subscribe to the game for the convenience bonus.

Option A: (With NO changes to the current system)
Nooblet A would have to trade the items over, receive the subscription tokens in-game. Then, either before or after receiving the tokens, they would also need to relinquish their account username and password to another player so they can login and purchase verification for them.

Option B: (Addition of cash vouchers/tokens being redeemable for store credit)
Nooblet A would trade the items over, and receive the subscription tokens in-game (or voucher). They could then use these items to verify their own account without the need to give their username/password to another person.

Sorry, but I think it would be better for the game to have option B available, instead of option A.

[Agrik]

Let me hear your thought on this scenario, then, since you're so set on saying no:

I'm unsure what kind of thought you ask me to say about this scenario and what a particular case can prove about possibilities.

I see a "nooblet" that unwittingly looks for possibilities to empower (a bit) someone in the game, thus skewing recipient's proportion of game deeds and awards. Or, so to say, to help some unnamed player B who wants to get in-game advantage disregarding game rules. This is already an action bad for the gameplay. The fact that Nooblet gets something in return (an access to a paid game content) does not justify harm to the game because he gets his own personal and out-of-game benefit. It doesn't help the game. It may be or may not be good for a more general kind of a project, but not for a process of playing a game.

Thus the better option for the game would be to have (not to remove) obstructions and not to ease risks on the way of such intention — A. Requirement of giving his account to a stranger may hint the player that he's going to do something possibly shady, and may plainly avert some inexperienced players from participating in such RMT, lowering quantity and degree of disproportionally empowered "players B" in the game. It would certainly averted me 5-10 years ago in different MMOs, as I could trade for shop items using dev-provided means without second thought, but was not and am not going to pass my account to anyone not very close to me.

Please mind, I have nothing personal against a well-being of this Nooblet, but as long as we talk about building a game, I hold that damaging the game experience for the sake of happiness of the those who are not caring about the game is not "good for the game".

Sorry, but I think it would be better for the game to have option B available, instead of option A.

Maybe it depends on how one define "better for the game". Some may say that everything that allows some customers become happier and sellers get more money is better for the game. But I disagree that this makes a game better. It may make a project, a business venture better, but by means of partially substituting gameplay with other services that sell better.

[loleznub]

You're mistaken, adding tokens or vouchers doesn't damage the game.

[Kaios]

You're mistaken, adding tokens or vouchers doesn't damage the game.

It does, he argued that quite well I thought but you're so blinded because of the faction you're associated with that you can't actually see the full impact it has on the rest of the game and players. But sure, keep pretending everything is fine and there's nothing wrong with the population and the game is in a perfect state and everything is fun.


This player count is not an uncommon theme of previous worlds since the introduction of tokens, hmm I wonder why Russians are more interested in playing this broken ass shit than anyone else...

[loleznub]

You're mistaken, adding tokens or vouchers doesn't damage the game.

It does, he argued that quite well I thought but you're so blinded because of the faction you're associated with that you can't actually see the full impact it has on the rest of the game and players. But sure, keep pretending everything is fine and there's nothing wrong with the population and the game is in a perfect state and everything is fun.


This player count is not an uncommon theme of previous worlds since the introduction of tokens, hmm I wonder why Russians are more interested in playing this broken ass shit than anyone else...

If you're seriously bringing in in-game politics, then that only further explains how stupid you are. If you also believe tokens being implemented in the game is the sole cause of a player drop, then again, you know nothing about the game.

I've already stated this simple concept, that you've both failed to understand now twice:

The fact of the matter is:

The fact of the matter is that someone that's going to spend money for this type of stuff is going to and that's that. Someone who wasn't because it was too costly to do so isn't going to start because new items were added.

This literally means that your arguement against "RMT" and "tokens" is the same as, we understand that RMT is bad for the game, but would rather the players involved with it get all the money instead of the developers. For example, lets go back to one of my previous examples. Assuming tokens didn't exist, we all know you would be purchasing Q10 anvils from HH for the price of $10, instead of using tokens to do so. Even if real money does impact the game's economy slightly, it's better for the game that it occurs in a developer supported manner because the money spent is funneled back into the game, instead of to players pockets.

If you two really want to keep arguing about this then I would like to know the following and how it would be better:

How is players sending money to each other directly through paypal for in-game items going to benefit the game better than that money being sent to the developers?

I would agree that IF the economy was so broken that the only way to get stuff was based off buying things from the shop, then yes it would be detrimental to the game. But the fact is, only people that are terrible at the game (Oh right, I guess it makes a lot more sense why you're advocating against this now), believe this because they A: Don't understand the game, B: Are lazy and don't want to work for valuable items, or C: Are a millineal and want instant gratification. But as I've already stated, the economy isn't broken in that sense at all. There are plenty of relatively easy to come by items that are capable of being farmed in massive amounts.

/thread

[Kaios]

How is players sending money to each other directly through paypal for in-game items going to benefit the game better than that money being sent to the developers?

It's not, but how are tokens a benefit to player retention? Agrik made the point that creating a business venture based around a video game and creating a business venture based around a pay to win model of that video game are two entirely separate things, are you playing because you enjoy doing so or are you playing it because of reasons that go beyond the scope of the game such as RMT? I would argue those players who would complain about the removal of a pay to win aspect in this game aren't really playing it because they enjoy it. If the developers have no choice but to make money at the expense of creating a balanced game then unfortunately as the saying goes gotta do what you gotta do but I think in the long-term tokens will only become more prevalent until the economy is entirely ruined and players stop buying them either way.

I would agree that IF the economy was so broken that the only way to get stuff was based off buying things from the shop, then yes it would be detrimental to the game.

http://www.havenandhearth.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=63&t=66064

[loleznub]

It's not, but how are tokens a benefit to player retention? Agrik made the point that creating a business venture based around a video game and creating a business venture based around a pay to win model of that video game are two entirely separate things, are you playing because you enjoy doing so or are you playing it because of reasons that go beyond the scope of the game such as RMT? I would argue those players who would complain about the removal of a pay to win aspect in this game aren't really playing it because they enjoy it.

As a hermit and a solo player who doesn't trade subscription tokens away, I'm clearly the literal definition of breaking your argument of

"I would argue those players who would complain about the removal of a pay to win aspect in this game aren't really playing it because they enjoy it."

I only play the game because I enjoy doing so.

/thread

If the developers have no choice but to make money at the expense of creating a balanced game then unfortunately as the saying goes gotta do what you gotta do but I think in the long-term tokens will only become more prevalent until the economy is entirely ruined and players stop buying them either way.

It's less about "no choice" and more about the choice of tapping into the income to help develop their game, or let players reap the cash in themselves. Either way, RMT will be prevalent in this game because it always has. It's just better for the game for the devs to get that money than for players to get that money.

I don't believe that the economy will ever be so flooded with subscription tokens that they are the ONLY meaningful trade item. They are a one time use object, and once used they are token out of the pool

http://www.havenandhearth.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=63&t=66064

The vast majority of that stuff is very easily obtainable. Even as a hermit, I could afford many of that stuff through in-game items. Go mining for some gold bars, Silver bars, go hunt for pearls. Stop being lazy..

This is just my pearl collection after about ~8 hours of game time farming them out.. Easily enough to purchase what I would want from that shop. And that's WITHOUT the pearl diver credo completed.

If you're complaining about the prices of the literal top-tier gear, then you don't understand how many resources go into getting that type of stuff, especially when it can be used to forgoe 75% of the work in spiraling that they've already done. They're selling tools that you could essentially use to compete with them directly. Think of it as a startup cost lmao..

[Kaios]

So you got 10 fated items in 8 hours even though for this entire world players have been complaining about boiling thousands of mussels without any pearl at all? Wow you must be the best hermit ever.

[Kaios]

It's less about "no choice" and more about the choice of tapping into the income to help develop their game, or let players reap the cash in themselves. Either way, RMT will be prevalent in this game because it always has. It's just better for the game for the devs to get that money than for players to get that money.

This game was never affected by RMT to the extent that it is now, it is way out of control because it's been normalized through token trade.

I don't believe that the economy will ever be so flooded with subscription tokens that they are the ONLY meaningful trade item. They are a one time use object, and once used they are token out of the pool

Did you forget what this thread is about?

I know that it has been spoken about already but since there is no action about it gotta make another thread, let us use tokens to buy hats/sketchbooks/verification. As a yearly golden sub user it won't affect me personally that much but it's just mandatory or tokens will become worthless again like last world.

Tokens give subscription time when they are used but the player's trading them the most already have subscriptions of their own which is why they are asking to give them further uses now. Let's say the model goes generally like this, new player comes to game, new player buys tokens to trade to established faction for better tools and equipment, established faction players sit on tokens because they also tend to be the people maintaining a subscription while new players are actually the people who tokens are intended to be for.

The current system encourages people to buy tokens not for subscription time like they are meant to be used but for in-game trading purposes at which point those tokens sit inside someone's hearthfire and stagnate, they get traded back to the same players that bought them in the first place (if they even stick around at that point), or they get sold at a fraction of their cost in a real money transaction only for the process to once again repeat.

I would really be interested to know if the devs are tracking tokens in any way at all, how many have been purchased total, how many are currently still in existence, and how many have been consumed for subscription time. I think knowing those details are rather important and without that information we can only speculate on their overall effect, but I suspect a lot more exist than have been used.

[loleznub]

So you got 10 fated items in 8 hours even though for this entire world players have been complaining about boiling thousands of mussels without any pearl at all? Wow you must be the best hermit ever.

Oof. That feeling when your argument has been debunked and you've gotta resort to passive aggressive comments to make yourself have something to say in the discussion.

If you go read what I wrote (hard concept, I know), I specifically said game time, i.e time spent in game doing mussel runs. Each run I get ~50-100 mussels ranging from q18-90. We will use the average as about 75. Each run takes me about 10 minutes tops.

75*6 = 450 mussels per hour.
450*8 = 3600 mussels picked and roasted.

Sure, RNG is at play, but even the devs have said there is no more fate mechanic in the game. I've gone a good 3k mussels dry this world as well, so I know the feeling.

But seeing as you've got nothing left to add except insults, thanks for your "valuable" and "productive" input