Economy

[Aaron Goulet]

It's really impossible to balance for this OOC factor in the IC economy.

You may be right on that point.  The restricted bank privileges that were suggested, however, hurt neither the casual independent player or the casual clanned player; in fact, it has little to no effect on either.  What it does do is help create a self-regulating system for the more hardcore players, where the disparity lies.

[musashi]

I think this point has been raised before, but...

None of my PCs, indies included, ever had more than 5000 'sid at a time, and all of them except one were long lived. Maybe people just focus on making coins too much? I don't know. My PCs get very bored of grebbing if they have to do it more than twice or so per real life day. It's not a very fun activity... why waste your life away amassing 90'000 sid if you could just sit back and actually enjoy the coins? Buy booze, buy whores, buy decent food, throw parties with your friends.

Edit to add: While I don't think the bank limitation idea is a bad one... please don't punish the players of characters who like to party rather than go greb every single day of their virtual life. It's nice to be able to store those 2000 sid away for when you have a templar at your throat.

Or offer coins to some random newbs and start plots.

I'd write more but I'm sleepy.

2000 coins will easily fit inside a backpack without weighing down a character with poor strength. The bank idea proposed would not affect the type of character you describe, aside from the fact that they would have the coins on their person instead of in their account.

I was going to reply to Vanth as well, but AG beat me to it.

[Lizzie]

Musashi's posts have convinced me that his is the voice of reason. Or uh - text of reason. Or something.

[mansa]

Did someone say something about putting a cap on the amount of money you can have in your bank account, as a possible side fix for this?

Something like - 5000 coins?

[Synthesis]

I think the people who actually believe the economy is so broken that it would require a drastic overhaul like removing banking for commoners are merely a quite vocal minority.

There's also the problem here of perception.  People who don't think this is really much of a problem aren't tempted to say much more than "not a problem" and move on.  Meanwhile, those who do think it is a problem offer long-winded and numerous posts containing observations and proposed solutions, which tends to overinflate this perspective.

The only things I tend to agree with:

1) Items that require little skill or risk to acquire (e.g. forageable items within safe walking distance of a city) should be minimally profitable.
2) Noble stipends should be large enough to allow them to spend profligately (if they aren't already).
3) Most GMH employee roles could probably be paid a little more.

[Aaron Goulet]

I think the people who actually believe the economy is so broken that it would require a drastic overhaul like removing banking for commoners are merely a quite vocal minority.

That might be the case, then again it might not be.  The fact that threads like these crop up so often and generate so much attention, however, is a solid indicator that quite a few players do think that there is a problem with the in-game economy.  Either way, it is irrelevant;  plenty of evidence, anecdotal and otherwise, has been presented, pointing to the fact that there is indeed a blatant disparity.  The economy, as it stands, does not support the game world promoted by the documentation.  And so far, I have seen more logically sound arguments suggesting that this change to the banking system would help the game more than hinder it.

There's also the problem here of perception.  People who don't think this is really much of a problem aren't tempted to say much more than "not a problem" and move on.  Meanwhile, those who do think it is a problem offer long-winded and numerous posts containing observations and proposed solutions, which tends to overinflate this perspective.

The same problem of perception applies in the reverse scenario, does it not?  The people who think that making this modification to the game isn't a big deal aren't tempted to say much more than "no big deal" and move on.

If you don't like the solution being presented, why not provide a logically sound line of reasoning to defend your point of view, rather than make a meager attempt to demean the importance of the issue?

[musashi]

Well he did write up a "long winded" reply earlier himself, it just got rebuked.

I've yet to see anyone come up with a legitimate flaw in the suggestion or point out anything that would amount to more than: I just don't like it because I don't want anything to change.

I mean, that's what all the "it would destroy all indie people and raiders and criminals and lions and tigers" talk amounts to, honestly.

And anytime a change to the game is suggested by anyone, for anything, there will be a fraction of the playerbase that wants to fight it tooth and nail because what we have now is familiar, even if it isn't "right".

[Ghost]

If it is going to mean anything at all, I actually like the idea of taking away the banking privileges of random nobodies.  I don't see what could go wrong with it, and it will probably be a step in the right direction to improve the economy.

[Ashes]

Well, it's a new idea.  We can't really say what would happen until it was actually implemented.

I have never actually used a bank account on any of my characters, and my wealthiest was actually a tribal desert elf who had no need of one because we had a camp in which to keep all the phat lewt from our poor victims.  But I do play poor characters, often indie grebbers, and I'm definitely one of those guys that keeps himself poor.  I once had a character in the 'rinth that would spend coin on spice in favor of food and water, and then barely barely scrape by because he was so addicted to it.  The character I played in the militia didn't feel it was appropriate to ask for his wage because he was frightened of the officer, and while he was supplied for and had friends in high places, there were rarely ever two 'sids rattling about in his pocket.

For those of you that want to play poor characters: invent things to spend money on.  Play a spice addict that will blow his stash on spice, get halfway through a knot, then destroy it all out of self-loathing over his addiction.  Play an alcoholic that makes stupid bets over Kruth while sloshed, and definitely let your indie grebber deal out some of that sweet, sweet grebbin' cash for bribes, or for no reason at all.  It's alot more fun, and keeps you from getting so rich your pockets burst.

That said, I find Musashi's idea about banks to be clear-cut, simple, and possibly very, very effective on this issue.

I say give the bitch a shot.

[Jdr]

Where's MarshalDFX when we need him, to throw economical theory at us?

[Aaron Goulet]

Where's MarshalDFX when we need him, to throw economical theory at us?

Saying his name typically summons him.  Just wait a bit. 

[Salt Merchant]

Nobles are crazy useful to commoners in -tangible- ways, and only the laziest of nobles would just live on their monthly stipend only.

What the hell, dude?

I'll need a few examples to be convinced of that. My interactions with nobles have been mostly limited to the "get out of the tavern" sort, save for a southern bard, who, unexpectedly, prospered more from the formidable Lord Templar Ihsahn Kasix than any noble until offending his aide mortally.

What would my independent commoner need to go to a noble for (at least in the south)? To get help with expanding his shop? Oh.. can't open a shop to begin with. To exert his influence on a templar? Better just to bribe the templar directly. To have a rival's fortunes take an unfortunate downturn? Templar again.

For those of you that want to play poor characters: invent things to spend money on.  Play a spice addict that will blow his stash on spice, get halfway through a knot, then destroy it all out of self-loathing over his addiction.  Play an alcoholic that makes stupid bets over Kruth while sloshed

So far as money being useful to commoners goes, this was the extent of what I could think of, save bribing a templar to spare your life. Large sums of coin are useless to commoners because they can't be spent on anything. Once you have your set of clothes/equipment, what do you spend it on? Extra clothes that just will vanish from your apartment within a month? Furniture that will do the same? A silt skiff for a quick death?

That guy with 90k in his bank account? He can't spend it on anything except to piss it away on (virtual) whores, spice or booze until his character degenerates and dies. (As an aside, my experience of PC whores is that they're not much interested in the actual whoring and often quickly become an aide). Given the amount of effort needed to accumulate 90k, it hardly seems worth it.

[Lizzie]

I can think of a myriad of ways a noble can be of use to an unaffiliated commoner. However, they'd all be IC, and it is completely and totally off-topic. Straw man, red herring, hyperbole...

The fact remains, there is enough of "something" going on with the economy, perceived or otherwise, that there are new threads created on a regular basis to question "it" (whatever "it" is). That indicates clearly that something needs to be addressed, that hasn't yet been addressed, or it wouldn't be a "new" topic of interest every 4-6 weeks.

[Salt Merchant]

I can think of a myriad of ways a noble can be of use to an unaffiliated commoner. However, they'd all be IC, and it is completely and totally off-topic. Straw man, red herring, hyperbole...

Surely you can generalize them and PM me?

[Synthesis]

I haven't responded to many individual posters in this thread because a) I don't think the topic is really worth spending a lot of time attacking (because I don't agree with the fundamental premise that there is a problem at all) and b) refuting much of it concretely would require examples containing IC info regarding my past characters.

Suffice it to say:  I play independent-type characters almost exclusively, and the types of interactions that the loss of banking code would pose a detriment to are far from "rare" or "uncommon": they're the ordinary way things get done when you're unclanned.

But to address musashi's anti-bank suggestion directly.

#1:  It would be a huge pain in the ass.
#2:  It's a clunky workaround to the fundamental "problem," which is that some characters have more money than some players think they should have.
#3:  It wouldn't even fix the "problem."  The ability to rapidly generate coins would still remain, thus instead of hoarding wealth, people would just spam(whatever) to generate it rapidly whenever they need it.  Need someone assassinated? Spend 5 RL hours spamcrafting.

I would much rather the "problem" be addressed directly, if the Staff actually think that it's a problem.  (And no, I don't think anyone has concretely demonstrated situations where an independent "nobody"'s massive amounts of coins were able to thwart the ambitions of a noble or templar.)

[Delstro]

This thread is going in circles now, so here is my bottom line.

PCs who collect a lot of coin and leave it in banks = Do not matter to me.
PCs who collect a lot of money and act like templar-ic = Should be slaughtered, unless they are in the sands, then you deal with it on an individual basis.
PCs who collect a lot of coins and spend it with PCs = Good for everybody.
PCs who collect some and spend it with PCs = Good for everybody and, usually, the most REAL personality.


I like the Nenyuki interest charges, atleast for unemployed commoners. Nenyuki rose to power and should be outright charging for bank accounts, atleast for commoners not working for noble or merchant houses.
5% on balances less than 5,000, per month.
10% on balances more than 5,000, but less than 10,000, per month.
20% on balances more than 10,000, per month.

[Salt Merchant]

I like the Nenyuki interest charges, atleast for unemployed commoners. Nenyuki rose to power and should be outright charging for bank accounts, atleast for commoners not working for noble or merchant houses.
5% on balances less than 5,000, per month.
10% on balances more than 5,000, but less than 10,000, per month.
20% on balances more than 10,000, per month.

If you do this, you might as well just remove Nenyuk from the game. Who in their right minds would keep any money there (except briefly, to transfer sums from north to south or vice versa safely)?

Don't you figure Nenyuk makes enough as it is by claiming the accounts of the newly dead?

[musashi]

I haven't responded to many individual posters in this thread because a) I don't think the topic is really worth spending a lot of time attacking (because I don't agree with the fundamental premise that there is a problem at all) and b) refuting much of it concretely would require examples containing IC info regarding my past characters.

You did seem to feel like it was worth spending a lot of time attacking when you wrote the long post of yours earlier that got rebuked for not being based on sound reasoning or actual examples of routine happenings in game. You also have been posting quite a lot in this thread from the get go before this particular suggestion was even brought up. So I can't help but feel like you're changing gears here and trying to play like it's not important to you, now that you have to backpedal.

Suffice it to say:  I play independent-type characters almost exclusively, and the types of interactions that the loss of banking code would pose a detriment to are far from "rare" or "uncommon": they're the ordinary way things get done when you're unclanned.

I'm sorry. I don't suffice to say. This is a totally general enough topic that you could provide examples, espcially if they were not rare or uncommon. They should be universal enough that breathing a word about them would not reveal sensative in game secrets about your previous characters of old.

But to address musashi's anti-bank suggestion directly.

#1:  It would be a huge pain in the ass.

Again, without actual examples of how this would be a huge pain in the ass, this statement says nothing other than personal opinion, which you have already admitted is slanted since you don't think there is a problem to begin with, despite the fact that a majority of other players tend to think there is. Yes, a majority, and not just in this thread alone, but in the fact that these kinds of threads continue to come up, posted by different people nearly every time, as the months roll on.

#2:  It's a clunky workaround to the fundamental "problem," which is that some characters have more money than some players think they should have.

This strikes me as another attempt to dismiss the concerns of a vast majority of players without cause because your minority opinion happens to be different. You also fail to provide an example of how its clunky. The general feedback seems to be that it would be anything but. Simple, very very effective ... these are the kinds of opinions most folks posting on the thread have used, and examples have actually been offered up to support them. So it's only fair that if you want to be taken seriously, you need to have actual examples yourself that are not red herrings, strawmen, or hyboles like your last post contained.

#3:  It wouldn't even fix the "problem."  The ability to rapidly generate coins would still remain, thus instead of hoarding wealth, people would just spam(whatever) to generate it rapidly whenever they need it.  Need someone assassinated? Spend 5 RL hours spamcrafting.

But the ability to rapidly generate coins isn't the problem. The ability to hoard them is. This really strikes me as another strawman. Sure, if you need someone assassianted you can spend 5 RL hours spamcrafting to get the money to do so, but that isn't the problem people were talking about. The problem was that a commoner could triple whatever a templar was able to offer, on the fly, out of their personal savings, because of how much money they were able to amass. Under the proposed system, that would be much less possible since the templar would have the ability to amass 50k and the commoner would really only be holding onto 10k at best barring unsual circumstances. So actually ... yes, the problem would be fixed. Or at least way closer to being fixed than it is now.

I would much rather the "problem" be addressed directly, if the Staff actually think that it's a problem.  (And no, I don't think anyone has concretely demonstrated situations where an independent "nobody"'s massive amounts of coins were able to thwart the ambitions of a noble or templar.)

Staff have already stated it is a problem, so again ... it's really not like idea that everything is a-ok is even up for debate. We have established that something is fishy. That's why they're tweaking things, as Nyr said they were doing in response to emails, and it's why Vanth said that it was difficult to fix this "OOC problem that affects the IC economy".

And you seem to be assuming that unless a nobody indie is able to "thwart" the ambitions of a noble or templar, then everything is cool, that's really just moving the goal post.

Most of the complaints in previous threads about the economy were not complaints that nobles and templars were being thwarted, but rather, that they were unable to offer monatery incentive to commoners because commoners were by and large, better off financially than they were and were scoffing at the idea of being paid what the noble could afford to pay them.

Or that people were only joining GMH's to learn the crafting recipies and then going indie to make way more money than they could make as part of a powerful clan. These were the complaints of the people actually posting in the threads, and they're legit complaints. Just because you choose to ignore them and think up a situation I don't think anyone has actually seriously commited to, and decide that unless that can proved, there is no problem ... doesn't actually make it so.

And frankly, being unable to properly motivate would be minions because the minions make more than you, is really about the same as being "thwarted". The end results are strikingly similiar. The noble/templar doesn't get to do what they wanted to do because their resources didn't square up to what commoners already had.

[Sinna]

Removing Nenyuk isn't a bad idea since the clan is really closed anyway.  Can we even rent apartments other than the automated ones anymore?

My last word on the bank is that I think removing it is more in-line with a harsh fantasy world, especially in where city-states are at war with each other.  I mean, how long would Allanak allow Nenyuk to hold Tuluki noble coins before it froze their Allanaki assets and opened their own "state" bank if any at all?

OOCly I think it will be a different and good change if it were to actually happen.  And another way to seperate commoners from the elite of society.

[Salt Merchant]

EDIT: Screw it, I give up.

[Aaron Goulet]

#1:  It would be a huge pain in the ass.

From an implementation standpoint, or a player standpoint?  Could you elaborate, please?

#2:  It's a clunky workaround to the fundamental "problem," which is that some characters have more money than some players think they should have.

I agree with this, but it is unlikely that we will see a true overhaul of the economy until Armageddon 2.  Workaround or not, it still serves as a solution to some (though admittedly not all) of the problems that commonly crop up in these discussions.

#3:  It wouldn't even fix the "problem."  The ability to rapidly generate coins would still remain, thus instead of hoarding wealth, people would just spam(whatever) to generate it rapidly whenever they need it.  Need someone assassinated? Spend 5 RL hours spamcrafting.

Is spending five real-life hours spam-crafting realistic?  That's roughly three and a half in-game days, or 30 in-game hours, of straight crafting.   I know you're just trying to provide an illustrative example, however, so let me address your actual point:

Put simply, the proposed change won't stop people from abusing the code to make coin quickly.  People who aren't abusing the code, however, typically don't accrue massive sums of money overnight, and from what I understand, this change was suggested to create an "flexible ceiling" on independent wealth, rather than clamp down on actual income (which might stifle casual players).  The reason I call it a "flexible ceiling" is because players can choose to amass additional wealth beyond what they can carry, in exchange for additional risk (e.g. storing coins in an apartment where they might be stolen, or entrusting some to another individual for safe keeping).

And while it limits the extent of independent wealth, it also creates opportunities:

• Raiding will become a more viable source of income (which in turn aids in regulating the economy).


• Protection during travel has the opportunity to become more valuable as a commodity.


• Creative players could start an independent business revolving around the protection of liquid assets.

I would much rather the "problem" be addressed directly, if the Staff actually think that it's a problem.  (And no, I don't think anyone has concretely demonstrated situations where an independent "nobody"'s massive amounts of coins were able to thwart the ambitions of a noble or templar.)

Nobles versus independents isn't even the issue here; it's the amount of wealth that a single independent character can accrue.

I'm not looking to bash you down, Synthesis; I'm simply wondering why you think this change might do more harm than good.  Thus far, you haven't really provided much to go on other than a vague hint at some anecdotal experience you can't share, and a general resistance to the idea on the basis that it doesn't fix everything.  In short, I'm asking you to elaborate on this:

...the types of interactions that the loss of banking code would pose a detriment to are far from "rare" or "uncommon"...

What do you mean by that?  Can you provide examples?  So far, the only so-called "detriments" I see are that:

• Independent characters won't be able to amass as much coin.
• Characters that make coin by traveling trade routes will have to carry their coin with them, increasing the risk (though this risk can be lessened by hiring help).

These are actually good things.

[Thunkkin]

Edit:  Edited because the person I quoted edited.

[Delstro]

I like the Nenyuki interest charges, atleast for unemployed commoners. Nenyuki rose to power and should be outright charging for bank accounts, atleast for commoners not working for noble or merchant houses.
5% on balances less than 5,000, per month.
10% on balances more than 5,000, but less than 10,000, per month.
20% on balances more than 10,000, per month.

If you do this, you might as well just remove Nenyuk from the game. Who in their right minds would keep any money there (except briefly, to transfer sums from north to south or vice versa safely)?

Don't you figure Nenyuk makes enough as it is by claiming the accounts of the newly dead?

The great part about being an unassociated and non-colors wearing commoner? No one cares about you or your interests and are, therefore, bottom rung in the society. Beaten and battered by every group above you. How does Nenyuk know when someone dies? Noone cares about you and no one will report your death in the newspapers. Unless you are a commoner in a merchant house, where all you may receive is a little line in a large ledger that begins with, "Senior Hunter, So-And-So-Amos died, no further payment is needed."

I am in favor of removing Nenyuk from the game. Unless, Nenyuk was brought back and actively took large amounts of money in caravans from Tuluk to Allanak, or versa vice.

[mansa]

I don't think there should be taxes / interest on bank accounts.  I think that sort of code change is large, and unnecessary.

I do think it's outrageous when people have over 30k in their bank accounts, if they are commoners.  However, if they have the political power to back them up, go for it!  How did House Morlaine and House Terash happen?


I think that the easiest code change right now would be:

Max common bank accounts at 10k.


In the future, I would love:
*Have the ability to purchase a larger bank account.
*Have the ability to purchase land, estate, etc
*Have the ability to purchase NPCs.

[Lithium]

At least the Zalanthan economy isn't as effed up as our own.