FinalHavenLarp.com

Aidan_Mcpryde wrote:The easiest and probably least satisfying answer is - Personal Income is the one thing in the game that gets better and better with little to no investment, especially when you count in the level multipliers. It seemed more balanced that characters who wish to continue to make ridiculous amounts of money be required to expend some sort of "slot/effort" towards it. If the multiplier is really that important to a character then they should be willing to spend a Perk on it, just as they may spend a skill slot on Allegiance, or the Support Boon.

Alright, just seems a little unnecessary since EVERYONE had access to those bonuses without any extra expenditure, all the was required was to put the time in playing the specific character.

Honestly, the change feels a lot like a glass ceiling to curb the perceived power of PC's to limit higher level characters, those that have put in the time and effort, against newer characters and the world itself.

But you can still get them . Just a perk. a perkvyou can't get at those levels.

I know, but that's not my point.

I wouldnt be surprised if this actually causes a bigger issue with balance amongst pc's in an effort to fix it. But my tablet is gonna die. I'll expound later.

Edit:

My point is what balance is being corrected? The balance between PC's and other PC's? The balance between PC's and the world? Both?

I believe this change will cause an imbalance between the PC's that opt not to take the two new perks (something that everyone had access to in the first place) and those that do.

Let's assume a level 200 character that is common and no other bumps to income. Without these perks, this character gets 200 copper. Compared to an equal level character that gets doubled that (400 copper) if they chose to get the two "new" perks. (They were always a perk, albeit just automatic ones at level 100 and 200)

That same character if they take support for their boon, are privelaged, with two levels of allegiance gets 1400 copper (200 base (support boon) x 1.75 (three levels of 25% increase) x 4 (perks)). Unless my math is wrong or I misunderstand how you do your math behind the scenes.

Or how about the guy that chooses to forgo the perks but is privelaged with two levels of allegiance and support. He gets 700 copper.

Or the guy that just has Privelaged and two levels of Allegiance. 350 copper.

Honestly, by the numbers, leaving the "perks" as they were makes it more balanced for characters that are not specc'ed out for making money.

Crunching these numbers only makes me want to assume that the "balance" isn't intra-player character balance. If anything it stimulates players to talk to each other. Higher level PC's paying lower level PC's to go out and do jobs for them (whether that is questing, crafting, repairing, murdering, etc).

Look at it this way - If you want to make a character who can "Scout" really good, you have to pay points to pick up the "Scout" skill from various sources, or find Magic items that can help. Now making money is similar. If you want to make a character that will generate an income that you want, you need to take the appropriate Essence Boon, skills, and Perks. Previously Higher level characters received Boons, Perks and more money at no cost to them. Most of that will remain the same but now if you wish to maintain a level of wealth that you enjoy you have to expend one of the, might I say, plentiful Perk opportunities that a 100+ level character enjoys.

Understand that I will be tracking the economy as best I can. Money going in, and money going out and If I see any great disparity then we can make changes then, but to be honest I doubt that will happen.

What you will see is, the people that want to make a lot of money pickup the new Perks, and those that find what they bring in sufficient will pick up other Perks they find better for their character.

I do dislike just pulling something from players that they have always gotten for free, but I believe it will be for the betterment of the game long-term.

FYI, your math was correct on all the examples I looked at. There is no real hidden math anywhere in the Personal Income (except for maybe Excel rounding things up in your favor).

One idea I think could have some merit is to swap the positioning out of the relevant perks/freebies. Give out the x2 Multiplier at level 100 for free, then give a perk or three to increase your multiplier by one each time you take it. If we're trying to remove straight gold from the economy, there are quite fewer 100s than there are 50s. People who want to focus on building their characters for gold generation can take their first perk at 40, and get the x2 multiplier earlier. Having the freebie at 100 will give players that sense of accomplishment for getting something for hitting three digits.

I do believe however, that something does need to be added to mitigate taking something away from the players that was previously free. How about reducing the number of levels between perks? 40, 70, 100, 130, 160? Currently it's 40, 80, 140, 200, which I find silly.

I wouldn't oppose an accelerated perk-acquisition chart.

all for a faster perk acquisition.

completely against money multipliers. (from both myself and sources that benefit from massive money multipliers)

I disagree that perk acquisition needs to be any faster than it already is. Getting the x3 and x4 multiplier was broken and that's why it needed to be removed. That much money coming into the game was part of the reason resource costs kept going up. Used to be less then 1 gold to upkeep myself and it went up to 1.4 recently. It has been a steady increase as well which makes me think that it stems from too much coin in game.

Kiel Reid wrote:Getting the x3 and x4 multiplier was broken and that's why it needed to be removed. That much money coming into the game was part of the reason resource costs kept going up. Used to be less then 1 gold to upkeep myself and it went up to 1.4 recently. It has been a steady increase as well which makes me think that it stems from too much coin in game.

This has been fixed! now you no longer need to pay for upkeep. . .wait?

I know you will be lowering territory output (as you should), however I would like to see territory ownership be more exclusive. An alternative would be making it so ONLY Bureaucrats and Diplomats can have territories at no penalty. Everyone else can have holdings as well but all output is decreased by 50%. Not a fully fleshed out rework but...

Bureaucrat
1- Allegiance
2 - Can control 2 Holdings with no penalties.
3 - Can increase all output of holdings by 25%
4 - You may purchase up to 25 power worth of military or cunning troops at 50% off per event. (This encourages slower army growth.)

Diplomat
1- Read/write
2 - Can control 2 Holdings with no penalties.
3 - Hire advisers at 50% off.
4 - All military/cunning troops defending or stabilizing your holdings or trade routes have their effectiveness doubled. (i.e. 50 count as 100)

Spy
1- Spy
2- Escape Artist
3- Resist Torture and Charm
4- Lower the stability of up to 2 holdings by 50%.

Make people spend points for the ability to get things in-between events. Get rid of territories and just have holdings.

I will agree with the concept of requiring a skill point cost to be effective in the economic/investment system. if not that exact implementation.

An alternative would be making it so ONLY Bureaucrats and Diplomats can have territories at no penalty.

Seems silly to simply shove numbers around to have those disciplines do what they already do....give an economic advantage to a player that puts points into them. No fixy if no broky...

I will agree with the concept of requiring a skill point cost to be effective in the economic/investment system.

Cool...see above...."Its in there!" (yes ..i know only old people will remember that commercial reference)

I would just like to clarify my overall stance on any kind of money/political/investment/survival system

why I don't like the current investment systems: it has the capability to all fall under the control of one person, is too open ended, and has no way to deal with inflation

why I didn't like the survival system: I actually did, I didn't like that the main form to deal with survival was the investment system, and that there was no way to build to not deal with it (that was fixed, appreciated)

why I don't like money multipliers: it puts too much money in game and there are not enough money sinks let alone good ones, and no way to deal with inflation.

why I prefer the personal money system over the investment system: it puts income into everyone's hands meaning cooperation and coming together is voluntary, as well as more personal.

why I don't like any kind of investment/money/economic system: it becomes the main source of income rather then questing and going on adventures, and quests and adventures don't give as much because the system exists so they don't want to flood the player base with money/resources.

It's already changing. Might as well make a change that helps the game run smoother. This change actually makes these disciplines more attractive. As it stands now you get basically nothing for being a Diplomat compared to being a Bureaucrat.

As it stands now there is too much paper power gained from resources. Especially now that there is no required upkeep. Rogues have and advanced skill that give them 2 resources. You really think that spending 60 points to have 2 holdings is not worth it?

Holdings need to be more exclusive. As it stands now every joe blow wants one because they feel like it's easy money. By making it more difficult to benefit you eliminate the overwhelming amount of people attempting to get one.

This causes game staff to become overwhelmed. Players become frustrated because they ALL want holdings and there are only so many.

Should a warrior be able to become a more powerful wizard than any other wizard on the field through roleplay and money?

you'd be amazed how many people don't want to delve into dungeons and look chests. They want to run a farm. They want to build things and make a new world. Their choices are as valid as looting the chests for the monies.