I'd like to suggest a tiered point system wherein gears can be submitted for a set number of points based on item class (i.e. A/B/C/S), points which then can be used to buy a select set of items (similar to Grandma Boxter).
Proper implementation of this system (as with any other) will depend very much on the details; overlooking certain aspects of item supply / demand and game mechanics could produce disasterous effects. Having said that, here are some of my basic observations and suggestions:
1. Players "crowd" only to the best gear, which according command huge premiums. Even when an item is slightly removed from the "best" for a class (i.e. highest damage, largest MHP/MSP boost, unique and useful effects), the item's market value drops precipitously and exponentially. For example, the Hurricane Fury 2HA goes for around 80m. The next best alternative is probably a Giant Axe, which is around 30m. The third alternative Berdysz? 50k per axe. So you go from 80m to 50k within just 2 item "tiers" difference. This is true for almost all items, weapons especially, since it's easier to define a "best" weapon (think TSOD vs SoD/Eraser vs LBW, Carga vs Lunakligo vs Swordmace, Valk vs Diabolus vs Meteo, etc).
2. The best "rewards" for item turn-ins are consumable. This is because it is much more difficult to saturate the market with consumables. For example, GWings are suitable rewards because people will consume them and to supply people with wings will likely not impact the supply and demand of "durable goods" like equipment. On the other hand, Safe to 7 certificates may not be such good rewards because a) certificates increase the supply of +7 gear (which currently have no sink) and b.) the value of the certificate decreases as the number of +7 gear increases, which disincentivizes people from using the turn-in system in the first place.
3. If "durable" rewards must be allowed, the turn-in ratio needs to be high such that the number of durable items created does not create an oversupply of said item and to remain consistent with the crowding effect to the "best" items.
4. Limits need to be placed on what can be purchased via turn-in points. For example, let's say Chainmails are 1 point, Full Plates are 10 points, and Meteo Armors are 100 points, I should not be allowed to turn-in 1 Meteo plate and buy 10 Full Plates. One can quickly see how complete "backwards compatibility" like this could be abused and destructive to the economy. There are several ways around this, but I will propose just one - segregate points by class, and allow those points to purchase ONLY items from the class directly above it. For example, Chainmails get you Class C points, which can ONLY be used to buy class B items. Assuming Class B items require greater than 1 Class C point, you guarantee against those who trade in a high-value item to get a ton of lower valued items.
5. If point value adjustments need to be made for overupgraded items (i.e. compensate more for +7 item vs +4), ensure that the point return multiple is less than or equal to the number of gears required to statistically achieve the turn-in gear's + rating. For example, let's say on average a person breaks 6 gears to get to +7, and that +0-4 Chainmails are worth 10 points each. The game should return no more than than 6x the base chainmail value for a +7 chainmail, or in other words less than or equal to 60 points. The purpose of this is to eliminate the potential for "upgrade arbitrage," although it's probably not a big deal given that there are significant cost involved in overupgrading gear.
6. Beware the need to cater to players who argue for exorbitantly better turn-in benefits to compensate them for sunk costs (i.e. high + ratings, carded items). The cost of carding and overupgrading items are sunk, and players should not expect to be compensated for these costs. Any compensation (as in note 5) should be done only to encourage the use of the item turn-in system, NOT to provide players some return of value on sunk costs.
Putting this altogether, one potential system could be:
-Gears are split into classes, for which people receive class specific points.
-One class of points converts ONLY into items from the class directly above it.
-A significant multiple of class points is required to purchase an item from the next class up (i.e. 10 Class C points for 1 Class B item). This is extremely important because of the premiums players place on the "best" items.
-Adjustments can be made for overupgraded items by providing a multiple of base item points. In general, the multiple should be no higher than the number of items it would take to statistically achieve the turn-in item's + rating. One question system designers should ask is at what +rating is a lower tier item worth the base item from the next tier up? My suggestion is to err on the side of conservatism (re: lower tier items need extremely high + ratings to be worth the base of the next item) simply due to the observed premium that the "best" items command. For example, I think people might prefer a vanilla Meteo Plate to a +10 Full Plate, so even though getting a +10 armor suggests a 1000x point multiple, I'd give it no more than 9x, assuming it takes 10 Full Plate-class points to buy 1 Meteo Plate-class item.
-As much as players support it, try to provide as rewards consumables that do not impact the economics (i.e. supply and demand) of durable items. Also, continue to think of ways to provide sinks for durable items, especially high-value durable items since players are most interested in the market values of these items. If I'm not mistaken, the point of this system is to eliminate unwanted gears AND restore the economic value of rare items so that people feel compensated for their hard-earned hunting efforts. It would be wise to keep these purposes in mind when going about item turn-in system design.
Finally, I'm grateful to be part of this conversation, and I wish you good skill Heim and iRO staff in crafting our new item turn-in system.
Edited by Fijas, 26 January 2012 - 11:10 AM.
This topic is locked
