[NEW MILLETIANS] Please note that all new forum users have to be approved before posting. This process can take up to 24 hours, and we appreciate your patience.
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the
Nexon Forums Code of Conduct. You have to register before you can post, so you can log in or create a forum name above to proceed. Thank you for your visit!
What if Nexon sold gold and ducats?
What if Nexon made a better offer than the botters? Discuss.
Comments
Those kinds of things only work when you already don't have in-game mediums of exchange.
And even then. PLEX/WoW Tokens/ETC don't generate new money, they simply offer a means of getting something of value for a monetary amount but without creating new currency.
Offering ducats would crash the market on upgrade stones, but the high dollar items are always bought out instantly anyway, so offering ducats wouldn't really help much in that regard, so it's only upgrade stones, which would crash from over supply of basic reds. (blues are already crashed into the toilet).
Nexon however already does that due to so much of the cash shop being tradable, and Fine/Credne Reforges already being easy methods of making gold if you want to pay for it.
They could offer potentially offer premium/VIP tokens, but that could be exploited by bot-farmers to get easier access to farming fields, which the whole point of switching them from Free to Paid was to hinder gold-farmers from using them.
Nexon could lower the NX cost of reforges however, and that WOULD force gold sellers to further drop their prices or offer even more gold for the same price point. Which hurts the monetary efficiency on their end.
Reforging is horrible even at the best of times so increased supply of tools barely dints their price.
/s
As for here in the US, it would likely drive even more players away for whale baiting.
Whether Nexon sells gold and ducats or botters do, it will contribute to inflation. Has Nexon been able to stop the botters and gold sellers? Can they not stop them for good? The evidence so far is that no they can't; they're still around. Even though the price of things, in gold, has jumped dramatically the price for gold from the botters has been more-or-less static for ten years now. This means that items cost consumers more real money now as they have to buy more lots of gold to cover it; yet the sellers remain in business. Over time it should reach the point where spending real money and handing it to Nexon will be cheaper than buying lots of gold, but we don't seem to be there yet.
Unless botting can be halted we are going to have to live with them. There will always be gold sellers, there will always be ad bots in Dunby Square. So, we can have the status quo or Nexon can drive them out of business by out competing with them. In both cases, you still get inflation but in the latter, you have no more add bots and harvesting bots contributing to lag.
...But, yeah, they'll never do it. I mean, the game already has too many pay-to-win elements in it, so people would complain. Western audiences prefer skill/effort-based progression over pay-to-win and pay-to-progress mechanics, and a package like this would probably make more players rage-quit than it would retain.
The only way nexon can stop botters is better NX prices to hurt the botters efficiencies. Adding even more gold to the system is never a fix. You MUST get RID OF IT. Not add more. Or if you can't do that, then you need to tweak the other options for exchange to compete with gold sellers to push them even lower and ruin their efficiency.
And they aren't even the problem.
They just have to revert the gold limit changes back. And then remove checks from existence, and just have everything be able to direct bank trade without a minimum limit. And no trade/AH price can be higher than 20 million, i.e. same shop limit as Belvast.
That is what was keeping prices low, since you can't charge more than someone can physically hold for an item or that your merchant service can handle. The INSTANT AH's went live, the inflation absolutely exploded, because previously 20 mil was the limit. Unless you wanted to hawk your wares manually via trade spam, you weren't selling for more than 20 million.
That put an effective upper limit on what the market could charge for day to day items and kept prices down relative to income sources. It was only the truly exceptional that sold for more and required more direct negotiations, and those are annoying to set up, so the majority of people will follow the path of least resistance.
Like kinda what the real world is trying to do with ivory? It's an interesting idea to float, but I don't think increasing the money supply will help.
I think the problem exists because there are so many web shop items that people rely on buying off others in game, and their rarity is creating large demands and inflated pricing.
If there were more dependable goods and materials that players an invest among themselves and decrease dependence on web shop goods, I think that could help decrease the amount of inflation.
Whatever is done if done, I don't expect too much drastic change though.
I think price limits are needed on the market outside auctions.
But I also think there needs to be a balance where it keeps their revenue sources on the webshop desirable where people will still continue to grow their sales from it.
That is an outstanding idea.
If a player struggles to pay back loans, the bank will issue gathering quests for materials and/or crafting items to pay back those loans.
The gold can only be borrowed when making a system transaction, NPC, AH, personal shops. Limit the times one can borrow money for a duration period. There is a max times one can borrow, and a min. These can fluctuate based on how responsible the borrower is, kind of like how one's credit works.
I think this will help with responsible money management, decrease the reliance of buying gold from bots.
At this time, I don't think penalties for default is desirable, so simply your account will run to 0 gold if you don't pay, and you will have to pay off with a bunch of quests.
It might be too hard to enforce. Perhaps a better model would be a pawn shop. You leave an item and are given gold for it. If you don't pay it back in time then item is destroyed. Only items that are sold in webshop or by NPCs can be pawned, and the amount of gold given is what the item would fetch being sold at an NPC shop.
Well, perhaps the quest part may be tougher to do, after all people can run away and never return.
For pawn shop, I think destruction would be too harsh. Lock it for a month after default to see if they can scramble back the repayment and then auction it off on the daily auction house.
Microtransactions are under the microscope as well, so yeah. There's that too.
I just wanna say that this would be terribad lol. Absolutely not, hell no. Nope. This would cause so much freaking harm to the in-game economy and people would just quit. This is NOT a solution to our problems.
I have wonder something, why do you want something like this?
OH! That's what the griefer comment was about! You think I'm a hacker! Lovely. I did get banned once, in fact. Years ago, I had created too many accounts in too short a time, so they were locked out for the better part of a year. Had I been aware of the rule I would have made the accounts at a legal pace; my bad. Let's see, what else have a done? I got banned off the previous version of these forums once as well. I had made a game improvement suggestion and didn't include my IGN and server. One of the moderators replied with a tone that I felt was unjustifiably chastising that I had like 24 hours to correct it or my post would be locked; very aggressive, in fact. I replied that if Nexon was so pedantic as to throw away an idea, because an IGN and server were not included in it, to just go ahead and close the thread. I try to log in the next day and I'm locked out, no explanation given BTW. Other than that I've been a good girl. If you think otherwise then you flatter me!
How about my loan suggestion?
I do not think you are a hacker. LOL. That was not what I was implying at all. XD
Thanks for the lols.
In that case, to answer your question, I direct you to an earlier post in this thread: