Liquid Assets growing too hard? (in General)


Brakke Bres [Ow man] December 4 2008 8:44 AM EST

It's interesting to see that liquid assets are doubled since january 2007.
Even total networth grew with an alarming rate!

With so much cash floating around and spread rather thickly over only a handful of characters, introduction of WA and encumbrance (love them both) no small wonder prices dropped per million.

Total cash is growing and growing and not enough cash is disappearing from the game.

Is it time for CB tax? Or more economy saving deals, buying supporter items for a huge amount of ingame CBD? Introduce training modifiers for a certain amount of cash? Should the upgrade costs of items be raised? Is it time for income taxes? Should jon erase one 0 of everyones cash amount (1000 to 100)? Or lower rewards again? Ramping costs for the lower BA rates like the cost for BA? Everyone volunteer 10% of there cash to central bank?

Does anyone else have an idea that would remove cash faster, but without "screwing over" the little guys and without ruining gameplay (no unlimited BA).

Cash needs to be removed from the game, or atleast the growth should be slowed dramatically.

Brakke Bres [Ow man] December 4 2008 8:52 AM EST

Spread thickly: http://www.carnageblender.com/stats/list-all.tcl?page=4&field=money&title=Richest&realm=Gondor&n_minions=0

Every character in the top5 has 2 mil or more.
And most of those characters have the same owner.

Dark Dreky December 4 2008 9:38 AM EST

While I do not have much time to make a thoughtful post, I will have to sum it up...

I agree. Cash needs to be removed from the game, or growth slowed dramatically.

/me votes Yes.

FailBoat[SG] December 4 2008 9:46 AM EST

Cash removed from the game....

So you want to introduce a trade and a barter system to CB? How you propose to keep it fair to the new players versus those who have been hoarding stockpiles of gear? How will this new system, because it would have to be a new system with your suggestion of removing cash, affect the growth of weapons since you have no money to grow it with? Will everyone have to forge up their own weapons from base?

Please note though Henk, not all of those characters "rolling in money" are even currently playing and both you and DD are already two people who need very little out of the economy.

The little guys, who include myself, are watching the rich cry for a tax increase to keep us little.

FailBoat[SG] December 4 2008 9:48 AM EST

Also, out of the Top 5 Richest Characters in CB, going straight down the list, these are their last login dates.

Last login at Dec 22 2007.
Last login at Oct 28 2007.
Last login at Apr 6 2007.
Last login at 9:40 AM EST.
Last login at Oct 1 2007.


So that looks like alot of dead money to me.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] December 4 2008 9:50 AM EST

i am not disagreeing with you, but would like you to perhaps explain why it would be better to have less cb in the game.

"Total cash is growing and growing and not enough cash is disappearing from the game."

"Cash needs to be removed from the game, or at least the growth should be slowed dramatically."

BluBBen December 4 2008 9:51 AM EST

Cash rewards needs to be decreased.

QBJohnnywas December 4 2008 9:58 AM EST

"Cash rewards needs to be decreased. "

Not around these parts they don't. I've never had a overflow of cash. Not ever. Ever. Ever. Ever.

I manage perfectly well to have things to spend my money on. Like debt.

The main reason we have more money in the game probably has something to do with the disenchant feature. Previously it would end up tied up in items. Now you can get back a lot of stuff. Which also accounts for why there are so many base items floating around. And if you've money to spare to pay out on items you're proabably wanting items with a bit of meat on their bones not base. Because while cash prices may have dropped item prices in a lot of cases are a lot higher.

Cube December 4 2008 10:51 AM EST

As someone said, whenever someone quits and leaves money there it's as if it vanished. Disenchant definitely was a large factor too. Not to mention, you didn't really state a problem to be fixed. Money should grow as characters grow also, in order for weapons to be able to keep up.

Lastly, anyone not being able to get a good cut of USD is not a problem for the game in the slightest.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] December 4 2008 10:54 AM EST

remove NW-PR

Jugg December 4 2008 11:48 AM EST

First of all, i should add that i've been away from CB for a long time, so if i make any factually incorrect claims, please let me hear.

This is a favorite-topic of mine. Actually, CB economic changes was one of the reasons that i quit the game some time ago, though i've decided to give it another shot.

One could probably call me a CB-economy conservative, as in, CB1-era style economics with the far heavier emphasis on items.

There were obviously advantages and disadvantages with that approach.

The old approach was less newbie-friendly, and it was hard for a newcomer to reach the top without a significant USD-investment.

The advantage, however, was a financially stable and free system. There were nothing that said you couldn't put a 100-million NW ELB on a fresh character, though it was not too common. You had to work for it, but once you acquired something, it would most likely keep it's value. That included CB$.

My thought here is, that even if a newcomer might have found the old system tough early on, there is a point where a player finds him/herself at the next step, where a stable economy makes you feel like you haven't wasted your time for nothing.

Nehemiah December 4 2008 11:52 AM EST

maybe make more slots for equipment, like rings, bracers, greaves, sleeves, collars, also perhaps allow some sort of socketing system and make jewels available for even more customization like what was done in Diablo 2.

having more options to spend cash on might help, but balancing all that stuff will take awhile, but hey, thats what changemonth is for? and change is always fun? keeps people coming back to try out new things, keeps the game fresh.

God Bless you!

Jesus Loves you!

FailBoat[SG] December 4 2008 11:56 AM EST

Please Note: My list was from the page linked, not the first page. *Grumbles* Too early in the morning for intellectual arguing. I'm going to go make coffee.

Lord Bob December 4 2008 11:58 AM EST

""Cash rewards needs to be decreased. "
Not around these parts they don't. I've never had a overflow of cash. Not ever. Ever. Ever. Ever."

Same. If some of you are overburdened with extra cash, I'd be happy to take if off your hands and invest it in the Blacksmith.

I also like Jugg's take on the economy. I liked it much better when the market was more "free." And this is odd coming from me, since I'm a real-world Liberal.

QBOddBird December 4 2008 12:00 PM EST

NUB pumps cash in, as well as the disenchant feature.

However, it exploded the money earlier this year, and I don't see a huge increase from then....NCB and new items make for good moneysinks!


We need another consumable item - like ammo - to be a constant money drain, if you ask me.

Also, I just want consumable items.

FailBoat[SG] December 4 2008 12:04 PM EST


"Same. If some of you are overburdened with extra cash, I'd be happy to take if off your hands and invest it in the Blacksmith. "

Agreed. I havn't been able to not be in debt a single day over the last two years. So if you guys are just drowning in cash, spread it out.

Sickone December 4 2008 12:32 PM EST

I was never in debt a single time in CB, never bought CB$ either...
...but then again, I only have a bit under 39 mil NW in items and I'm in Gondor (1 year old) already and my character could easily handle up to 390 mil NW on it.
Sure, I did waste some cash on various items and switched around strategies a bit, but then again who never did it ? I also wasted most of my NUB because I simply couldn't log in much, and this is my first NCB (finished being a NCB a good while ago).

So, whoever said CB$ income needs to be reduced - ARE YOU MAD ?
If anything, CB$ income needs to be significantly increased.

Godpanda December 4 2008 12:50 PM EST

Let's be clear. The problem is NOT in the individual's accumulation of wealth.



The problem is how that wealth gets distributed once earned. In reality, people are making DOUBLE the money at least that it seems like because so many players are simply selling the CB they make and aren't taking any in.


This kind of problem will always exist until A) You ban USD xfers. B) You increase transfer fees non-linearly between people. So transfers under 1 million are taxed less percent wise and larger xfers are transfered more (with it being against the rules to try to make tons of small xfers to avoid the fees)

FailBoat[SG] December 4 2008 1:54 PM EST

Also, in the TOP 10 Richest Characters, only one person has double characters listed and that is NightStrike.

So again, why are you whining Henk?

Godpanda December 4 2008 2:05 PM EST

Just to be accurate, NS has a-lot more cash than what is listed on his characters XD

FailBoat[SG] December 4 2008 2:09 PM EST

Even a lot is an understatement for NS.

lostling December 4 2008 2:15 PM EST

well he DID BUY USD

Jugg December 4 2008 2:27 PM EST

I can really understand the frustration over USD-purchases, but i have a different perspective to offer on this one:

The obvious issue with USD is that in-game progress is no longer governed by in-game accomplishment alone. I believe this is the most common argument against USD purchases.

Then again, there are two obvious issues with this approach:

1. As for CB, USD-purchases only grant a networth-advantage, which only partially helps a characters PR-progress to the top.
2. Really, why make the PR-progress the only dimension of the game? I'd say the potential to sell off in-game assets would be quite a motivator, and give people a feeling that they are not just wasting time playing.

I wonder, is it really a wise action to intentionally cause in-game inflation to discourage the use of USD?

Brakke Bres [Ow man] December 4 2008 2:34 PM EST

You're are forgetting one little thing and that is the total liquid assets, not an individuals amount of cash!

And you made my point exactly when you said everyone below 2mil is inactive, you can image how much cash is with the small small amount of active players?
But that isn't the point at all, its the rapid increase of liquid assets in only a small amount of time!
Since 1 January 2007 the amount is doubled!

snapshot taken by lamuness on January 2007

Liquid assets 2,264,724,858
Total NW 17,554,495,033
Active players 413 (past 7 days)
100% Liquid Assets

March 2008
liquid assets 4,255,554,665
Total NW 32,446,299,015
Active players 310 (past 7 days)
187% Liquid Assets

currently
$5,904,593,808 total liquid assets
$40,554,393,504 total item net worth
Active players 241 (past 7 days)
260% Liquid Assets

Raising NW, raising LA, dropping Active players, mmm.

If anyone doesn't see this...

Wizard'sFirstRule December 4 2008 2:47 PM EST

at Jan 07, according to the history graph, Koy has just over 2m MPR, today, LA has 4.5m MPR. I don't see money being a problem, our MPR is exploding, omg, people are playing and MPR is going up.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] December 4 2008 2:48 PM EST

again, why is this bad?

on a related note, if the money bonus portion of the nub is also based on the current highest mpr, and thus growing over time, isn't the liquid asset boost to be expected just as the n*b xp bonus will continue to rise?

Wizard'sFirstRule December 4 2008 2:53 PM EST

<sarcasm></sarcasm>, it didn't show up in my last post.

QBOddBird December 4 2008 2:57 PM EST

I'm with Henk, I wanna see a CB tax!


Also I want to see a small stocks side-game, where I can invest in bootydancing, daggers, and elven stilettos.

Wizard'sFirstRule December 4 2008 3:08 PM EST

again, why is it a problem when our money doubled while MPR doubled? Are we suppose to have a zero-sum game here where we have a fixed amount of money? Other games introduce money and let it grow with power/equipment stuff, why shouldn't CB? :P

QBRanger December 4 2008 3:12 PM EST

I would think a more pressing problem is the fact the number of active players (7 days) has been steadily declining.

That is the problem that should be solved.

Perhaps discussing why less people are playing is more in line with what the game really needs.

Rather then rehashing the same discussion every few months.

Ancient Anubis December 4 2008 3:15 PM EST

can i say i make maybe 50k a day possibly less since the amount i pay for my bought ba takes almost all my money each day that i earn through fighting i think its at a fairly low rate currently and u should not be lowered. Owe and the reason i am growing in wealth is due to solare paying back a loan and me having disenchanted multi million $ items

Brakke Bres [Ow man] December 4 2008 3:43 PM EST

Why is this a problem?
Inflation.
Fluctuating item prices.
Prices increase.
Nubs can't pay for items

Active players drop, more liquid assets = more cash per player.

Overall this economy is worsening. The crash will come when individuals have so much cash, prices for items will rocket.

Zaekyr December 4 2008 3:54 PM EST

This idea just sounds like another way to bring about mage blender.I have never had excess CB$ and I bet most playing Tanks very rarely have.This entire game is based on growth of this nature.If MPR continues to grow so will the flow of CB$.

Nehemiah December 4 2008 4:24 PM EST

idea: add consumable potions that give bonuses for 6/12/24/48 hours, with varying bonus's, like exp/stre and such, that will take cash out, if their powerful enough and reasonably priced.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] December 4 2008 4:50 PM EST

Ranger: I tend to believe the solution to dwindling numbers is the same. Removing NW-PR stops punishing those who chose to buy items. Which returns items to having value, which makes the game more interesting and revitalizes things.

There are plenty of other things to try, I just think this is a big one.

Cube December 4 2008 4:58 PM EST

Inflation. - Show me some price increase comparisons.

Fluctuating item prices. - They've been pretty stable except when effected by big changes like the new item shop. I just bought a HoC today for 1.9 mil.

Nubs can't pay for items - NUBs are probably the main cause of inflation, so well they can afford it if prices increase (means they get more cash relative to the inflation).

Active players drop, more liquid assets = more cash per player. - Somewhat, but not everyone sells their stuff at the end, as many pointed out, a lot of the money there is just sitting on inactive accounts. Only as much is transfered to other accounts as people put up USD, or if someone is generous and gives it away in a contest.

Overall this economy is worsening. The crash will come when individuals have so much cash, prices for items will rocket. - It's a game, the item spawn rates are all the same, what would this "crash" entail, same number of items created, and pretty constant demand. In fact I bet the items that spawn in auctions are correlated with the number of people. Items don't have to be produced like in the real world.

PearsonTritonRaveshaw December 4 2008 6:54 PM EST

I think a big reason that people are selling cash is because they run characters that don't need to spend a lot of money upgrading their equipment. Mages and enchanters, for example, can get by completely naked. Maybe introduce new mage/enchanter gear?

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] December 4 2008 6:57 PM EST

Nov, if you remove the NW-PR link, then you need a linear way to allow NW to increase Wall, Mage, Enchanter and ROBF wearer's 'power' through items.

Or make Weapons go back to non linear upgrades.

QBsutekh137 December 4 2008 7:03 PM EST

GL, I think his point is that Encumbrance and the fact that NW only is a part of damage. True, one can invest in a lot of AC or other specialized amulets and enchanter gear, but then it is back to Enc.

In other words, with Enc in play, would removing the NW-PR link entirely be suitable now? If it does turn out mages are still missing out on the fun, just add a few more mage-specific items (except for staves, of course. *smile*)

Lord Bob December 4 2008 7:10 PM EST

"This idea just sounds like another way to bring about mage blender."

Especially considering who it's coming from, yes.

I do like the consumable item idea though, but balancing that will be tricky.

I also agree with Novice on the nw-pr issue. We have encumbrance now, so let's kill the PR penalty.

And yes on the idea of new enchanter gear...

"Nubs can't pay for items"

Good. Sorry, but I hate the N*B.

"Or make Weapons go back to non linear upgrades."

I'd like that as well, and have been advocating it for months.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] December 4 2008 7:12 PM EST

The problem is, ENC grows linearly, as the stats it's based off of grow linearly. The NW it's there to limit (on Tanks) gorws linearly.

Mages, et all have nohing to take advantage of the linear growth of ENC, like Tanks can, if the NW-PR link is removed, and CB returns to the state it was with leveraging 'power' through stacking linear NW up to your WA, or now ENC, limit.

Tanks can play that game.

Everyone else, at some point, gets stuck, not matter how large ENC becomes, becuase thier upgrades simply stop becoming feasible due to the curve.

At least the NW-PR link (while it doesn't stop this existing problem) show the extra 'power' Tank can get thorugh this.

I hope I'm not being to confusing here, been ill this week. ;)

Lord Bob December 4 2008 7:19 PM EST

"Mages, et all have nohing to take advantage of the linear growth of ENC,"

Displacement Boots come to mind.

Or mages can just start playing the USD game to afford those high costs. At the very least that will get them to stop pointing the finger at us tanks.

Either way, when we're talking about offense, tanks REQUIRE net worth simply to attempt an attack. Mages don't. If they can't keep up with enc, that's not a slam against mages. It's against us, because we almost have to, to remain competitive.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] December 4 2008 7:21 PM EST

db is saddest panda in the list of items that are now mediocre

Lord Bob December 4 2008 7:30 PM EST

Remove the PR penalty and they become powerful again.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] December 4 2008 7:32 PM EST

ENC is much more of an issue for them, the PR bump has always been minimal. The fact they don't do anything more than reduce damage with a fixed cap any more has a lot more to do with it.

Lord Bob December 4 2008 7:56 PM EST

To be honest I'm just not seeing the DB problem. I use some pretty small DBs and they keep me alive vs. ELBs and Hal long enough to land the big hits in melee.

Just because they don't easily - easily - reduce 100% of a particular character class's offense anymore doesn't make them weak.

Brakke Bres [Ow man] December 5 2008 2:49 AM EST

"Show me some price increase comparisons"
Base tats? Corns? Shield of capacity?

"Fluctuating item prices"
Indeed the hoc first they were 7mil each now only a 2mil, mithril shields going from 100k to 2.2mil

"Nubs can't pay for items"
yes they bring in loads of cash, but only when they already have certain items and an established strategy at in the very begin they need loans to pay for.

"Active players drop, more liquid assets = more cash per players" Most people aren't giving their stuff away in a contest, only happens once every while, not many people in the top 5 are inactive.

"Overall this economy is worsening. The crash will come when individuals have so much cash, prices for items will rocket."
Indeed spawn rates stays the same, but the increase of cash is much higher. The demand of items at present is not constant, nor it would be. Most guys that play here, the 250 active players, already have established strats and have all the items they need. Items are produced here, the central bank spawns/produces them. But I'm not sure but are fixed spawn rates, but the item that is spawned is random. You buy it from the CB, but the CB doesn't spawn high upgraded items only base

Cube December 5 2008 3:07 AM EST

Sorry, base tats changed because of the tattoo artist change.
The Shield of Capacity never had a constant price to compare to, and it was also buffed later on.
Corns have been 2 to 3 mil since I got here a year ago.
The HoC obviously changed because it was reintroduced.
Mithril shields get in high demand when people want to make walls, and that demand fluctuates quite a bit for some reason, but that is hardly evidence for inflation/deflation whatever you are trying to prove...

What I wanted you to show me were general trends, not isolated reasons.

Rentals has always been there as well as loans from other players. I know I rented plenty as a NUB, but they can afford items very fast anyway.

A lot of people do not have everything they want already as many people have posted...

And you know why prices are pretty constant? Central Bank as well as the spawn rates. The spawn rates are random, but common items like Katanas come up much more often than rarer items like Corns obviously; in the long run it's a consistent trickle of items.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] December 5 2008 3:33 AM EST

Also, removal of the NW-PR link (sorry, don't mean to harp on about this, should have mentioned this last night) makes PR meaningless.

But then again, what does PR really do, as it doesn't take strategy into account. ;)

For example, imagine two identical Mages (the NW-PR link effects everyone, not just Tanks). One has no items, the other has a massive (lets say +20) pair of AG.

With no NW-PR link, the game would show both as having the same effective 'power', while the guy with the massive AG would have a significantly larger DD, and actually have significantly more 'power'. Which is hidden and not represented.

I'd be all for getting rid of PR though. But we would need a rating based on MPR and NW.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] December 5 2008 3:34 AM EST

"Either way, when we're talking about offense, tanks REQUIRE net worth simply to attempt an attack."

That's why there's the WA. The NW-PR link is to keep 'power' true. The WA is to represent that Tanks need *some* NW to function.

Cube December 5 2008 3:41 AM EST

Wasn't weapon allowance eliminated?

Brakke Bres [Ow man] December 5 2008 5:23 AM EST

Nope it just didn't count the X anymore towards it. Only PTH.

Cube December 5 2008 8:18 AM EST

weapon allowance is dead

I'm also pretty sure this is how AA has 8 million pr.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] December 5 2008 9:00 AM EST

OK, I'll amend my above post to;

"That's why Weapon X isn't counted in the NW-PR link. The NW-PR link is to keep 'power' true. Weapon X exemption is to represent that Tanks need *some* NW to function.

QBsutekh137 December 5 2008 9:46 AM EST

I don't see NW-PR that way, GL, and I was one of the loudest voices at the time to get it implemented...

CB1 never included NW in power. It was standard to say to oneself, "Ah, we have the same PR, but he has a huge Loch. Win for him." My problem wasn't primarily with that -- it was with his ABILITY to have that huge Loch, with no cap on its use. The reward situation was actually secondary in my mind (though it is the horse I beat most vigorously as a means to push for change).

Encumbrance fixes that primary issue. And if it isn't fixing it enough, Encumbrance should be intensified until it DOES work. In your mage example, why would the one mage have huge AGs and the other not? The mage without gloves deserves to lose.

The one path that fixes ALL of this is having more for mages to invest in, things UNIQUE to them (that "U" word is key). Don't talk about DBs or armor -- a tank can use all that, already. Same with enchanter gear. But there's a quandary there, as well. If you did something like add a linear damage increase to mages based on a gear type, then you have simply turned mages into a new kind of tank.

Right now, I am leaning toward removal of the NW-PR linkage (shock!) but a serious crank-down on Encumbrance. Course, that will make single minion teams even more popular, which Jonathan appears to dislike.

I don't appear to really be getting anywhere, do I? *smile* So just consider this food for thought. Spoiled, soggy, bad-tasting food.

Jugg December 5 2008 10:02 AM EST

As for Sutekh's example:
Yes, indeed, two equal PR characters would often come down to gear.

What i would like to ask you is, how come winning through gear superiority can be considered bad, while winning through PR superiority is not? Has it got something to do with the liquid nature of gear, or is it a matter of abstract game philosophy (as in, "the character advancement should come from fighting alone").

This is not a rhetorical question. I'd simply like to hear your motivation.

QBsutekh137 December 5 2008 10:11 AM EST

Jugg, my motivation on that front was almost always, and almost solely about USD. Gear can be enhanced by factors outside of the game. MPR cannot. Simple as that.

I wouldn't go so far as to talk about if something is really "bad"...the USD argument has been around forever, and I don't think it is bad, per se. But before Encumbrance, not only could external factors aid with "power", that power did not show up in rewards calculations. Before CB1 closed it's doors, I started a little single tank, strapped on a HUGE ELS. The rewards I was getting were far greater than any NUB/NCB here on CB2 at the time, would probably still give them a run for their money even with hos large they are now. That was because USD had created that ELS, and every bit of its power could be used without anything stopping it -- no WA, no NW/PR linkage, and no encumbrance. My little character could carry it unhindered and reap all the benefits therefrom.

Now that Encumbrance is in play, and is a pretty standard game-play dynamic across all types of games, tried and true, I think exploring that further would be a good idea instead of still trying to tweak the reward front with things like WA and NW/PR linkages. I am not 100% sure that could work and be balanced, but Encumbrance seems far more straightforward to me as a concept than some sort of ethereal weapon cap or linkage.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] December 5 2008 12:19 PM EST

"It was standard to say to oneself, "Ah, we have the same PR, but he has a huge Loch. Win for him.""

Exactly Sute. ;)

And that's something that needs to be fixed.

If we have a 'power' rating. Otherwise, any rating of power is meaningless (and it could be argued it is anyway due to Strategy, but that's for another topic I think! ;P)

"In your mage example, why would the one mage have huge AGs and the other not? The mage without gloves deserves to lose."

Sure, no problem with that.

But the game shouldn't show them both as having the same 'power' rating. That's just misrepresentation. Especially if things like rewards given or earned are based off of your 'power'.

The guy with the AG obviously has more power, so even if he wins more he should be worth more reward for beating and sohuld earn less for beating the mage without the gloves.

But that's not the case if you remove the NW-PR link.

This thread is closed to new posts. However, you are welcome to reference it from a new thread; link this with the html <a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002bSO">Liquid Assets growing too hard?</a>