The Economy (in General)

Basically... there is something wrong. Slightly. And it's not really wrong... as it is skewed. Basically... while the number of competitive players isn't all that high, the amount of cash flowing into them has grown substantially.

Basically, there is too much cash out there.

But this isn't bad for quite a few CBers. I mean, they have more cash, so while the prices are raising, so has their income, making it seem balanced. But, this only applies the the hardcore gamers. The ones who don't play as much are, I think, suffering.

A corn costs 3 million. Fine. I would guess 50% of the players don't really find a problem with getting one if they need it. But simply put, there is a higher demand than supply. So the cost will keep raising. And the income for some players won't match it.

Simply, some players will be able to keep up. And others won't. As more and more items are introduced, the problem will continue.

Basically, I'm asking for an increase in all auction spawned items. The prices for some of these items are only going to continue to raise. The items costing less will NOT weaken gameplay. It will only make it better, as more players can afford items essential to their strategy. I mean... how can an EEET compete against another EEET if one has 3 corns fully upgraded and the first is struggling to get +6 on their AS minion. Just makes things more skewed.

Money is important, and I would NOT want to remove that aspect from gameplay. I just think this is a strategy based game and not having infinite funds, merely moderate funds, should not take you out of contention.

Thank you.

Yep, that certainly is how an economy works. The lower, middle, and upper CB classes are becoming more and more defined.

The economy has become better suited to USD spenders. I mean, 3m for a corn is not a big deal considering you can get 1m for like $7.50. I remember a couple months after I first joined someone made a post complaining that prices had dropped to $10 to 1m. I mean, I am a minor USD spender too, but it might not be very fair towards non-USD spenders.

Something bothers me with the fact that ''rare'' items are owned by everyone around. I mean, isn't there like a couple hundred corns about?

Now, I know these items are absolutely needed, since their abilities are fantastic. Still, I find it annoying that I, and 2000 other people own a pair of NSCs. ( Numbers are not exact, I know, it's an example!)

What I'd like to see is fewer rare items. I know it's a stupid and impratical idea. Just stating what i'd like :)

Lowering rare items' abilities could remedy the situation of them being ''needed'' instead of being cool and giving a little boost.

This would also make it so upping the number of items that are in auctions is not needed. <-This I don't like very much.

Anyways...

/me cries inflation

I have called this out in another thread, but feel there is a huge bias with the auction system as well. Certain players just keep bidding on ALL items 24/7, then sell them at BINS for higher rates right after. They are monopolizing the auctions, and forcing an inflation on certain items. I really think having a limit on what you can bid on in the auctions is the way to go. 1 item per class of goods. It would make things more interesting too. Having 2 guys constantly bidding every desirable item up then reselling them, is that what the auction system is all about?

I also have a thing against not knowing who the items in the rentals are owned by. I would like the choice NOT to give business to those who are hording up all the rares, just to put them in rentals. Yes I know, rentals are good for the game, but why not limit how much one can put in?

I think both those options would inadvertently hurt players who don't deserve any bias - but I do agree with the problems you stated.. And the idea for rentals is good, imo.

"Rare" items are not "rare" in this game as defined by Webster. Calling an item "rare" is just a shorthand for "required". It doesn't address the number in existence.


This, as well as many other aspects of the game, would change greatly if there were more active players.

"A corn costs 3 million."

Yeah, it was always like that, at least for more than a year, I paid about 3 mil for each of my corns, this was before June 2006. This isn't recent.

"I would like the choice NOT to give business to those who are hording up all the rares, just to put them in rentals."

Who are you going to give it to?

"I would like the choice NOT to give business to those who are hording up all the rares, just to put them in rentals."

Who are you going to give it to?

If I see someone who is renting 5 HoC's, as compared to someone who put 1 in, I would choose the person who put 1. A person putting their extra one, or one not being used is far less likely to be 'sploiting the system to make a profit. Maybe I had the wrong impression about the rental system. I thought it was there to help the player base experience other items and use ones that weren't in USE by other higher players in order to help with learning, formulating strats, and growing. I didn't think the rental system was there to be exploited for profit. Seeing someone in this game with the name "rental master" makes me wonder why a cap isn't already extant. Other things I've been reading about need balanced (tanks vs. archers), here I see more of an ethical issue.

"Rental Master" is a system account, just like Mr. Chairman and the Auctioneer and Blacksmith.

What's wrong with buying something, and then renting it out instead of using it or selling it again? Unless you're monopolizing the market, I see no problem with giving people the choice to rent high level gear for a cheap cost relative to how much it is to buy it.

People who buy and rent don't make much money, either. From my 2 AoI's and my HoC in rentals, I pull in around 330k per month. With AoI's costing 2.5m each, and a HoC costing 4m or whatever, it would take me years to get back what I could make selling them by renting them.

And, yes, rentals, like most other services in the world, is there to make some profit. If there was no profit, most people wouldn't do it.

As for the economy in general... I don't really have a strong opinion about it. I'm not one of the rich USD spenders. I'm one of those people who wasted their NUB and now hasn't much money to their name. I think it's fine the way it is.

After all, what's the difference between buying a corn for 1m earning $100 per fight and buying a corn for 2m earning $200 per fight?

corn's were even 2.5 mil in cb1 when there wasn't too much inflation... there is always and has always been a lot of cb$ floating around... it's just part of the game, unless you give us hard data(auction logs) of item prices increasing (rapidly?) then i see no clear reason to think there is any inflation

"Maybe I had the wrong impression about the rental system. I thought it was there to help the player base experience other items and use ones that weren't in USE by other higher players in order to help with learning, formulating strats, and growing. I didn't think the rental system was there to be exploited for profit."

Sure, it'll let you experience other items. Sure, it lets you use ones that aren't in use by other players. I am missing how that doesn't allow for profit.

"Certain players just keep bidding on ALL items 24/7, then sell them at BINS for higher rates right after. They are monopolizing the auctions, and forcing an inflation on certain items. I really think having a limit on what you can bid on in the auctions is the way to go. 1 item per class of goods. It would make things more interesting too. Having 2 guys constantly bidding every desirable item up then reselling them, is that what the auction system is all about?"

Yes, this is what it is all about. That may sound awful, but hear me out. You want to limit someone simply because they are doing something that you dislike - there's not anything technically wrong with it. I don't like the practice either, and yes, I know who you are talking about. However, the solution is easy: bid what you want to pay on the items the first go around. That way you don't have to pay MORE after he wins them and puts them up for resale at a higher price. Fact is, he's just putting them up for resale at that higher price, nobody is forcing you to pay it.

"I also have a thing against not knowing who the items in the rentals are owned by. I would like the choice NOT to give business to those who are hording up all the rares, just to put them in rentals. Yes I know, rentals are good for the game, but why not limit how much one can put in?"

You mixed two ideas in here, but I agree. I *would* like to know who is renting out the items. After all, like you say, I might want to give my business to a certain person or not, or I might want to know who owns the most Corns, etc - but perhaps there's a reason for that anonymity as well.

There is a limit to how much can be put in rentals already, too - the armor limit already in effect on a character. You can get around this by creating another character, but it is a bit of a pain to go from character to character shifting rental items in and out, keeping up with what is renting and what is not and etc.


And GW - As long as each fight is putting out 2.5X normal cash rewards and increasing for new players, the amount of cash being inserted into the game will only rise. That's what we have money sinks all over the game for, we'll just see if they can keep up. =)

"Something bothers me with the fact that ''rare'' items are owned by everyone around. I mean, isn't there like a couple hundred corns about?"

I agree with Ashiliza[T]or. I'd like to see the number of rares go back down and become rare again.

To be able to do so, though, it is important to remember the current state of rare items.

They are "needed" right now.

Make em scarce, and a select few will "pwn" all the others.

I say: Rarety+ Effectiveness-

Rarity*