Make in-store items purchasable with tokens

[MagicManICT]

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.

Loftar has said time and again the last two worlds (three?) that there are no longer any fated items.

[Kaios]

Loftar has said time and again the last two worlds (three?) that there are no longer any fated items.

They say a lot of things that turn out not to be entirely accurate though, in either case the ability to obtain pearls is still mostly based off of RNG unless you enjoy participating in the engaging game play of mussel collection and boiling for hours on end like that dude so he can trade his 10 pearls in the thread I linked for 100 points since they only buy pearls at Q10+ for 10 points each. I doubt many large faction players accept pearls at high prices considering their need for them has severely diminished.

[SnuggleSnail]

Can personally confirm pearls/every foragable I've significantly interacted with is no longer fated. An industrious hermit could figure out how the global pool works, and get a pretty significant number of pearls per hour/effort. Even if they mindlessly brute force it, with the player count averaging out they're pretty common now at all times. The inability for new/casual players to produce a reasonably high quantity of valuable items is a myth, they just lack game knowledge

[loleznub]

Really it just shows his own incompetence with game mechanics and thus causes his credibility for anyone to every take his opinion seriously when it comes to anything remotely game related. Doesn't make sense to listen to people that if you ask me, especially when important things such as RMT is involved.

[MagicManICT]

Loftar has said time and again the last two worlds (three?) that there are no longer any fated items.

They say a lot of things that turn out not to be entirely accurate though, in either case the ability to obtain pearls is still mostly based off of RNG unless you enjoy participating in the engaging game play of mussel collection and boiling for hours on end like that dude so he can trade his 10 pearls in the thread I linked for 100 points since they only buy pearls at Q10+ for 10 points each. I doubt many large faction players accept pearls at high prices considering their need for them has severely diminished.

There's definitely something with the RNG, but the "fate" mechanic is gone. From what I've noticed of the others, it's a matter of "time of day," luck, and maybe player activity level. Now that there are few players, I've been seeing more pearls. (Maybe the algorithm needs adjusting?)

Didn't mean to derail this thread with the comment. Sorry everyone.

[Agrik]

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

That's a new level of argumentation.

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...

I can say only for myself: it's because the game is still less broken that many others, where devs go full throttle at pleasing those who pay big money for twisting the game world to their advantage.

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

Maybe because you still haven't successfully proven this concept even once?

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.

Maybe my English fails me, who are those "we all" you are stating to know this strange thing about some "you"?

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.

Err... what? It is better to have game-damaging activity supported by developers? It isn't an impact on the "game economy", it is an impact on the game rules. On the game balance that is not easy to achieve even without that. And I wouldn't presume that the money would make the game exactly better IF they were collected at the cost of worsening the game. Not everything that makes a good profit is a game.

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 don't quite get which money flows you ask to compare.

1. There are $10 for an anvil that are going from buyer to seller. PayPal or token or whatever, devs won't get these $10 instead of recipient until they're selling the anvil themselves.
2. There are, on a larger scale, $10 that flow from Player B to the devs by the means of subscribing Nooblet A useful for B. Do you mean that likelihood of devs getting this money from A depends on the way A and B use to trade? Maybe, but in any case this is a way of getting profit for assisting the anti-game intentions: player B parts with these $10 only for breaking the game balance with in-game-ly undeserved anvil.
3. And then there is money that devs really get based on the fact of providing currency and service: they will get money in exchange for all the emitted items that form a volume of currency needed for RMT market to run.

It's less about "no choice" and more about the choice of tapping into the income to help develop their game

It can't be guaranteed that any additional inflow will make the game only better. Anyone can make mistakes or may be simply better at making something a bit different, thus subcosciously preferring to do it.

Either way, RMT will be prevalent in this game because it always has.

It certainly will be prevalent as long as people are advocating it. Because all the activity is made by people.

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.

A situation to think about. As long as tokens stagnate, they have not so much value, thus P2Wers trade them for items of lesser advantage. If devs start to sell items for tokens, it will not only give an advantage in style for money but also will drain excess volume of tokens, raising their value. And then a new token buyer will likely trade a bigger advantage for his $.

Really it just shows his own incompetence with game mechanics and thus causes his credibility for anyone to every take his opinion seriously when it comes to anything remotely game related. Doesn't make sense to listen to people that if you ask me, especially when important things such as RMT is involved.

Not knowing about a particular game mechanic may be disconnected with general knowledge about online games, while resorting to state the same phrase thrice and winding up to yelling in a large font doesn't look good for credibility in any area.

[loleznub]

The argument I'm making is that RMT will occur in H&H, with or without the aide of the developers.

I'm advocating that the developers should be the ones to receive that money, as it will help further game development.

All of my posts have been the reasoning as to why the developers should get the money over the random players.

You're advocating the RMT is bad for the game and for some reason you believe that RMT wouldn't occur without the support of the devs, or would be significantly less, which taking into consideration my knowledge of past worlds, would be false. Sure, RMT is bad for any game. But I think you simply lack the knowledge to fully understand how the economy works in this game and has worked in the past, much like how Kaois lacks the basic fundamental knowledge of how to play the game, after taking into account your previous posts. That being said, since you've failed to understand the first three times of me saying this, perhaps the fourth time will make it click.

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.

If your counter-argument is still "people only RMT because tokens are convenient compared to paypal", then you're only proving me right with your lack of knowledge and essentially advocating that the developers not receive funding, too. I would agree that there is a convenience factor involved, but I will not believe for one second that the removal of tokens or anything of the sort would hamper RMT. If anything, I believe it would have the exact opposite effect because trading cold hard cash through PayPal would then become the normal trade, and without any "standard" price set ($10 for a token, for example), and the undoubtedly more uses cold hard cash (wanna buy food in real life? Can't do that with a subscription token) has over in-game tokens, that $10 anvil would become a $2.50 anvil.

[Agrik]

The argument I'm making is that RMT will occur in H&H, with or without the aide of the developers.

And I agree with you on the fact that RMT will occur.

You're advocating the RMT is bad for the game and for some reason you believe that RMT wouldn't occur without the support of the devs, or would be significantly less, which taking into consideration my knowledge of past worlds, would be false.

I don't think this difference can be easily distinguished among tons of other changes with a naked eye. It's an area of combining many small independent steps so I can't imagine better way to deal with them than identifying mostly a direction of effect.

Whether to call it "significant"... To start, I haven't. But it's all relative. As "noticeable" alone, I think it isn't, but when you add up two, three, ten, dozens of "unnoticeable" shifts in one direction you suddenly get a very noticeable effect, so you may need to perceive the steps as "significant" somehow.

So while the step isn't big in absolute measurement, the question is what we get for what. The possible devs' gains, as I described in 2. and 3., are really small as well: they would get only an occasional difference in getting a payment from Nooblet A, and they would get only one $10 payment for each token circulating in many RMT deals over the course of years. And on the top of this I still doubt that all the money collected from non-game services would be invested in improving only the game experience part, it's too intermingled. So we have a very small yielding (?) to RMT for a very small difference in funding the game improvement, hardly measurable what is bigger.

If your counter-argument is still "people only RMT because tokens are convenient compared to paypal",

It even wasn't, in the first place.

If anything, I believe it would have the exact opposite effect because trading cold hard cash through PayPal would then become the normal trade, and without any "standard" price set ($10 for a token, for example), and the undoubtedly more uses cold hard cash (wanna buy food in real life? Can't do that with a subscription token) has over in-game tokens, that $10 anvil would become a $2.50 anvil.

I don't see what stops people who would do this "if..." from doing it now. What stops them from buying an anvil through PayPal for $2.5 in a "cold hard cash with more uses" instead of quasi-$10 token. People who want to get a subscription won't go for less than $10, and people who want to get maybe less $ but in cash already have Paypal at their disposal and price advantage over those who want full $10.

[loleznub]

le sigh, your philosophical questions and debates are tiring.

Creating additional uses for tokens / adding store cash vouchers would not make the game any additional pay-to-win (Which it's really, not) like you think it would, for the reasons I have given you.

/thread.

[pppp]

There is a difference between vanity stuff and convenience stuff.
More hats or hats for tokens most likely would not harm the game, except maybe hat trades, but these already can be traded <hat for token> between players so it won't be a big deal. I would welcome more vanity stuff, e.g. furniture and outdoor structures. This could be implemented as an optional ingredient - blueprint which makes the basic structure take a different look (different 3D resource) but keep the same in-game properties. That would be similar to sketchbook pages. First step would be having a number of fixed models to choose from. Sadly, I do not believe we can ever have custom 3D resources as it would be easy to slip in something that negatively impacts client performance. Maybe we can have custom skins over fixed meshes.

Convenience items do give economic advantage and are inevitably P2W. Look at Salem's tailor cotton cleaner ot hunter knife which gave small economical advantage accumulating over time. That kind of stuff is a no.