The City Monopoly Meta
-
Currency will need inflation or is just a skin. And people will do ''economy wars''' (''here we dont accept filthy coin''). To propper run an inflation system you will need a way to setup the GDP of the city/alliance. Its possible but i dont know if devs will want to run so deeply on economic side.
The ''not so deeply and boring almost no mathematical way'' to run a gdp/inflation/currency system is to make some kind of ''what city product/get'' (from craft/gathering/taxes and farm) vs "what city spends'' (all city money sinks). So a rich city will need to offer enough money sinks for players to ''power up'' the currency (so people will want to spend money on city and get city currency / spreed city currency). Its not perfect but its enough for a game.
Big guilds will dominate the economic wars cause they will have resources to build infrastructure so players will spend money on city and enforce the currency. Its only another side of the war.
Edited: i like this side but i think its boring for the average player. I know some people like to play AH and i know Ashes of Creation will have a proper Stock Exchange so you can play with the city (node within AoC) econometric and get a proper inflation system but its hard work (and the game wil have economic wars so...)
-
You want to encourage Ranking up cities over owning many smaller ones across the map?
Make city ranks truly matter. The higher you maintain your city rank, the more advanced building options you have available to you.
Example:
Currently, an enchanting table can enchant any tier enchantment based on what reagents are gathered.
Revision: A basic enchanting table at an alchemy center can enchant tier 1 and 2 enchantments, an Advanced alchemy center (requiring a Rank 3 city to contain it) can also enchant tier 3 and 4 enchantments.Currently: a Smelting and Metal Working shop can smelt any metals and alloys you have the raw materials for, and they take the same amount of time to do so.
Revision: A Basic Smithy can smelt Grade 1 metals and produce simple alloys (Copper, Tin, Bronze, Gold and Silver), a Journeyman Smithy (Requiring City Rank 3) can smelt Grade 1 and 2 metals and produce intermediate alloys (all of the above, plus Iron, Steel, Nickel, Brass, and Platnum), and a Master smithy (Requires City Rank 5) can smelt Grade 1 metals/alloys with a 25% reduction in time required, smelt all Grade 2 metals/alloys, and has access to Grade 3 metals/alloys (Blood Steel, Adamantite, Spirit Metal, Mithril, etc...)If a city loses a Rank needed for a given building, any current projects would continue, but with a 25% time penalty for completion, and new projects would only work at the appropriate level of the new City Rank.
This would give City Ranking a Real meaning to the owners. If you want access to the more advanced resources and capabilities, you have to build up and maintain your city in the rankings.
Other options to keep people from running city monopoly groupings would include a 1 week cooldown before you can swap cities after changing. IE: Initially, you join a city, it gets credit for you as a citizen and you start to contribute. If, however, you decide to leave that city and join another one, your new city gets credit for you and the old city loses credit, but now you aren't allowed to quit and change cities again for 1 week. This will prevent constant citizenry reshuffling.
Account lock city ownership. This way, a given account, not the individual toons/characters decide ownership of a given city/house/business in game. This means you have to get a whole other account if you want to multi-box several city ownership by a single person.
Instill some 'Natural Disaster' mechanics that periodically plague a city, causing more upkeep to be needed to maintain the city ranks, keeping groups from spreading too thin their attentions. Example: A swarm of Ore-mites breaks into the Mine of the city. until the Ore-mites are cleared out, no resources can be gathered from that mine. A blight hits 30% of the crops in a area of the continental map. All cities crops within the area are affected, and additional upkeep costs are incurred by said cities to research a cure for the blight to get their crop yields back to normal, or the current crops must be burned out, the soil refreshed, and whole new crops started from scratch, requiring several citizens participate in the massive crop rotation to save their fields. (all or nothing, either all fields are burned down/plowed under, or the blight keeps recurring until cured).
With the above suggestions, running cities will take up enough resources and focus that splitting your focus to run several other cities will become a lot harder, AND cities are encouraged to grow and expand, instead of just maintaining at Rank 1 and minimal effort.
-
@Vollmond said in The City Monopoly Meta:
GDP
inflation can be fixed by limitation of gold coming from game. so if its limited or has came to end it more sound like a diflation not inflation. yes you r right, many details should be thought over. im not selling a final product its just a concept.
yes you r right there will be a GDP but you do not actually have to count it. Players will regulate it naturally, actually market will. State can smelt other city coins into gold as well, so only those servive who coin cost more then gold itself. Yes there should be like a currency exchange kiosk or stock markets. but becouse they are humans they have it Demons and beaste more like primal races.
yes there will be an ecomony wars, but thats a point. it just another extra level of compitition and if humans cannot hold peace then lets swords deside. But in my view the peace should not be peaceful, you know what i mean??? otherwise people get bored and will do war in sake of war. and when war has no economy behind then there no politics behind. cos we know its all about money, including wars. you r right its complicated and maybe devs dont like it but i think it would fix the problem we talking about. And in my opinion it more boring when u just have war for no reason, just cos they have horns and we dont....
yes you r right people may say - we dont take your filthy coin, thats right. and its bad. but they also can say - brother, we foght together like brother so lats unite and except each others filthy coins )))) you know ))) but at that moment you gotta except any filthy coins you ve been given. no choice. if you saw my video this is RMT economy system.
thank you for your respond. you r right but to me they more feachers then bugs )
- ps: and yes u r right about price for city upgrage. it cannot be charge with fixed abount like its now, cos it fluent or like a liqued (i dont know the word) basicaly not fixed as currency is being printed by state. so im suggesting not to charge money but charge resources including gold ingots, and governor will have to collect tax in order to pay up city upgrade. it will be like in free democracy when state raise taxes and support busness by buying res of it. and then invest into itself (state). should be fun ))
also with this system there will be less inflation then with current system cos with current system golden coins grow like a weed or grass and never stop till infinity.
- ps: and yes u r right about price for city upgrage. it cannot be charge with fixed abount like its now, cos it fluent or like a liqued (i dont know the word) basicaly not fixed as currency is being printed by state. so im suggesting not to charge money but charge resources including gold ingots, and governor will have to collect tax in order to pay up city upgrade. it will be like in free democracy when state raise taxes and support busness by buying res of it. and then invest into itself (state). should be fun ))
-
I really have to disagree with basically most of the ideas presented in this thread. Not because they are wrong in any way, some would make for interesting content ... but in the end it will not change things.
From what I have heard (sorry i cant find the proof) there is already a plan to make larger cities more beneficial, I believe it was something about nodes spawning faster and resources in general refreshing more rapidly. Also I'm pretty sure the city limits already grow ... remember we are still early on (this is my first test for reference) and lots of changes can still be made that is why we are here.
Sadly I dont see a way to stop big guilds/companies w/e you want to call them from monopolizing resources. In this case you say they take 1 city of each type and that is bad. But in the case that each city simply had all the resource types ... well then THE MORE THE MERRIER! Maybe they would not hold onto the tier 1 cities later in the game but I can see a lot of benefit (even now for smaller groups) to grab neighboring cities and stock up on resources early and then just focus all crafting and building efforts into 1 city.
Realistically speaking in the current scenario the large company is WAY more vulnerable because you could in theory intercept their shipments of goods between their nodes and break up their monopoly.
I know I only covered the OP's post (not even all his ideas), but it will always come down to the same thing and that is that big guilds are going to do w/e it takes to get ahead. This is not because the game is flawed or broken it is because that is the way they play.
That all being said i think the current system of resource "scarcity" is very interesting. It gives a great opportunity for those smaller companies to trade with each-other and create strong bonds, and hopefully protect each-other from the big bad guilds. Realistically in games like this the world always becomes factionized through mega alliances, NAP agreements ... etc etc. Personally i think the resource per town idea is a very brave step and that they stick to it until more robust full testing takes place.
What is really needed in order to allow for cities that are independent of the larger guilds/alliances to thrive is a robust permission system. If you have a city with lets say 2 small guilds and a bunch of randoms it is going to get very tense very fast if resources start disappearing. The city owners must be able to allocate use permissions in great detail, maybe even over very fixed time periods. I'm probably going to make a separate post about this idea but individual stations should be able to have very specific perms as to who may and may not use them. On top of this there needs to be some kind of support for communal stuff. Maybe you get some gold for delivering stone/wood/ore to the city (from the city bank), and then maybe the smelter/smithy/enchanting table requires a small gold payment to be used and makes that item PRIVATE to that person for the duration of their usage (weather that is the 4 hours to turn ore into ingot or just a couple minutes to enchant some stuff). All in all the city functions will need a lot of focus and are I believe the best hope for this game.
I could go on for ages frankly I love debating ideas and trying to find solutions. The issue is that the problem with all these games is that there are people playing them and people are assholes
.
-
This is the #1 major issue I see in this game... a “guild” can easily create a corporate empire that no other players can compete with. Making the economy of the game stove piped into one or two guilds favor.
Nothing is more disappointing for a small community / city to see a mass guild swarm the map and essentially make your city and goods worthless. Why? Because they simply don’t need you and they control everything. While you’re still wearing twill and begging to trade your resources, they’ll role by saying...”I’ll sell this sword to you for 6-10k gp...peasant! I worked “hard” making this!” What a joke.
By the way, a limitless guild membership is a disastrous idea.
-
@BlueGoblin You had me until that last part.
-
If i'm not wrong the numbers to raise a city are really lower than expected. I suppose numbers will raise greatly (maybe 50 instead 20 to a large city and 20 instead 5 to small city)
Personally i would like to remove guilds from game, transforming them simply in citizen of each city (when u join a city, u join a group as citizen, with own chat working for all citizen of that city.
This should even allow to not be excluded by cityi management for those who are guildless and join a city where guilds keep control and decisions, avoiding the emargination of someone (like me
)i doubt will exists guilds with more than 50 members or to be more realistic 100 players who control 2 big cities. maybe 2 small, or at worst 1 big and 1 small. But with my system they are forced to not be in same "guild" so everyone will work for his "home"
-
@Meziljin I like your idea, but I doubt they’ll do it.
-
@Meziljin said in The City Monopoly Meta:
If i'm not wrong the numbers to raise a city are really lower than expected. I suppose numbers will raise greatly (maybe 50 instead 20 to a large city and 20 instead 5 to small city)
Personally i would like to remove guilds from game, transforming them simply in citizen of each city (when u join a city, u join a group as citizen, with own chat working for all citizen of that city.
This should even allow to not be excluded by cityi management for those who are guildless and join a city where guilds keep control and decisions, avoiding the emargination of someone (like me
)i doubt will exists guilds with more than 50 members or to be more realistic 100 players who control 2 big cities. maybe 2 small, or at worst 1 big and 1 small. But with my system they are forced to not be in same "guild" so everyone will work for his "home"
I would be limiting my city to guild members only in this case. Guilds would still exist.
The issue is not guilds, it's the city monopoly.
-
Maybe my currency idea was too global, but i have smaller solution, which i already suggested in my videos, which nobody watches.
Well, its simple. (i will repeat it for you). Instead of making GODs LAW of forbiding other cities take your resourses, we can simply allow everyone to take your resources BUT those who will gather them without license get a crimanal lable on them. However, you may think its the same thing??? NO. Criminal lable you get NOT automaticaly, but only if someone see you doing this and then report you have done it. It can be a player or NPC guard. But even if you got reported comiting crime you still NOT a criminal. Player or guard have to run to the city and deliver inforation that they saw you. So if you will kill player or guard you wont be a criminal. Well technicaly you will be, cos you ve killed a man but he wont be able to calim you like a city law baker. so you will still be this city friendly person.well i dont know but basically you can steal resourses untill you got noticed. Maybe there should not be an NPC guards. Maybe there will be like a city militia, or police who checking up on licenses from miners who digg res and if they have no licence they can claim lawbraker a criminal and even declair war to city he belongs to.
-
@Nekrage said in The City Monopoly Meta:
@Meziljin said in The City Monopoly Meta:
If i'm not wrong the numbers to raise a city are really lower than expected. I suppose numbers will raise greatly (maybe 50 instead 20 to a large city and 20 instead 5 to small city)
Personally i would like to remove guilds from game, transforming them simply in citizen of each city (when u join a city, u join a group as citizen, with own chat working for all citizen of that city.
This should even allow to not be excluded by cityi management for those who are guildless and join a city where guilds keep control and decisions, avoiding the emargination of someone (like me
)i doubt will exists guilds with more than 50 members or to be more realistic 100 players who control 2 big cities. maybe 2 small, or at worst 1 big and 1 small. But with my system they are forced to not be in same "guild" so everyone will work for his "home"
I would be limiting my city to guild members only in this case. Guilds would still exist.
The issue is not guilds, it's the city monopoly.
Oh the guilds is still an issue. The city mechanic not allowing a monopoly is obviously the root issue, but massive guilds creating sister guilds to circumvent and take advantage of a flawed system should be shameful. Especially because it only hurts the game. The game they are playing. But I guess people are still people. And being nefarious and underhanded is a common human behavior.
Can't we just stop people from switching cities as quickly AND stop non-citizens from joining sieges? You can't defend your empire if you aren't actively participating. Someone smarter than me can figure out a clever way to still allow militia groups to assist in a way that people can't circumvent. Or maybe not, and the loss of a hired gun has to be sacrificed for the good of us all.
-
@d3Sync said in The City Monopoly Meta:
but massive guilds creating sister guilds to circumvent and take advantage of a flawed system should be shameful
It will still be done.
I could argue that claiming multiple cities for a single guild "should be shameful"
Still being done. Still an issue.
The game needs to be DESIGNED around players utilizing and benefitting THE MOST from a single, upgraded city. If this change is not implemented then Fractured is dead on release.
-
cmon relax, it's an alpha.
First part is the show of game creator intents, ideas and concept, where all seems perfect
Second part is the shit storm of people behavior trying to find mechanic holes, glitchs, bugs, which will compromise the game core
Third part is the mediation, wherever game designer and customers find a way to co-exist.We will break a lot of game concept for sure, but it's our part lighting the holes, to avoid to falling inside later.
I think they got the problem, now they have to meditate on even with our suggestions and show up in future their fix option.
by the way, the most stable alpha game ever seen, but holy god too many contents missing, i hope they will thing to reduce greatly their initial ideas for a smoother start (no 9 isles, no asteroids, maybe in future with some dlc or free patch, but reduce and focus on this for the moment)
-
@Meziljin said in The City Monopoly Meta:
First part is the show of game creator intents, ideas and concept, where all seems perfect
Completely disagree. The design is broken.
@Meziljin said in The City Monopoly Meta:
Second part is the shit storm of people behavior trying to find mechanic holes, glitchs, bugs, which will compromise the game core
Right. That's why we have the shit storm of "monopolize every city possible because it's more beneficial to us/me".
People that break and exploit mechanics in alphas and betas AND REPORT IT SO IT CAN BE FIXED are needed. That's what I'm doing here.
@Meziljin said in The City Monopoly Meta:
Third part is the mediation, wherever game designer and customers find a way to co-exist.
What?
@Meziljin said in The City Monopoly Meta:
I think they got the problem, now they have to meditate on even with our suggestions and show up in future their fix option.
What?
-
Where all seems perfect in their intents (to be clearer)
yes we have to report all problems, like we are doing, i said nothing more...
they have an idea (a concept) of the game mechanics, while probably we customers will have a different one, pretending to be implemented for our tastes.
They can decide to flex to our desires completely or find a middle solution to satisfy all even partially
-
@Nekrage said in The City Monopoly Meta:
First part is the show of game creator intents, ideas and concept, where all seems perfect
Completely disagree. The design is broken.
I dont see how the current cities mechanic is any more broken than adding all resources to all cities. The big guilds would still aim to capture as much territory as possible since the resources are tied to the ownership of cities. Frankly the bigger issue here is the fact that if there is no active PvP enabled there is no way of stopping them from grabbing up every city they can gather the money for. I doubt you are going to be holding so many cities so easily on a 100% pvp enabled realm because ppl will just stroll into the city (or if that is safe the mining area) and rick roll you since you cant be everywhere at once. Now ofc maybe, as i mentioned, the city might be a safe spot but i hope in that case at least that the deposit is not and should be vulnerable to being stolen.
I have not seen a game like this that has solved the issue of big guilds dominating and monopolizing the resources. Frankly the best game till now for this kind of shit, or at least one that was released relatively recently, is Last Oasis.
-
@vedran625 said in The City Monopoly Meta:
I dont see how the current cities mechanic is any more broken than adding all resources to all cities.
Right. That would be bad too.
Players should have to leave the safety of their cities to obtain resources.
@vedran625 said in The City Monopoly Meta:
The big guilds would still aim to capture as much territory as possible since the resources are tied to the ownership of cities.
Yup. That's why it's a bad idea.
@vedran625 said in The City Monopoly Meta:
I doubt you are going to be holding so many cities so easily on a 100% pvp enabled realm because ppl will just stroll into the city (or if that is safe the mining area) and rick roll you since you cant be everywhere at once.
Sieges are scheduled content. Not "do as you please". This will not be an issue.
I have a feeling my city suggestion may have gone unread. Will repost here.
"My Suggestion: Completely revamp the resource system. Remove the resource allocated to cities design. Have resource hotspots such as quarries that players would fight and compete for. Fertile Grounds could be removed completely and a slight increase to all farming yields could be applied.
The entire city system should be adjusted so players WANT to focus on one city and attempt to level it to the max rank. I believe as the city ranks increase the available land allocated to the city should also increase. This way massive cities begin to form on the continents truly allowing cities to differentiate themselves from other cities. Bonuses could be applied to reduce the amount of resources needed for some crafts rather than increase the amount of resources players obtain."
-
I agree that the monopoly meta needs to stop. I think the best way is for claimed nodes could only be defended with the citizens of that city. I would say this is the easiest option to implement in game. Would it be the best option? Probably not. But this game is still in alpha and right now the devs need to kick out the bugs before implementing big changes.
-
Do... you guys know about the city tech tree that is supposed to come out? I feel like you guys don't know about the city tech tree that will be coming out.
Also I don't think that only having one city should be the ONLY way to go. Keep it possible and have its own set of pros for people to consider and pick what is right for them.
-
@AlejoTheBear said in The City Monopoly Meta:
Do... you guys know about the city tech tree that is supposed to come out? I feel like you guys don't know about the city tech tree that will be coming out.
Also I don't think that only having one city should be the ONLY way to go. Keep it possible and have its own set of pros for people to consider and pick what is right for them.
We are all well aware of that.
This game's meta is an absolute mess. I play to be the best and if the best is "scrounge up every single city in existence" then I will be doing just that. Just so we are clear, my guild will benefit from this system, doesn't mean I want it to stay this way.
