Money Grubbing Capitalist Suggestion

[DaloLorn]

The whole discussion is moot: We cannot and will not sell things like that.

I mean, the suggestion has come up several times staff side, and is an open question.

I, personally, see no reason why not. We need to get gold out of the economy, and this kind of gold sink especially targets grinders and looters, who tend to be the people with the most gold on hand and nothing that they are spending it on.

It wasn't until after I posted it that it stopped being about real money and started being about gold.

Since when is 2 million cheap???

If 2 million is cheap, we might need to consider actually outright discontinuing the previous economy and creating a new one. Because that kind of inflation is absurd.

Opinions will vary wildly because of how that money is distributed.

2M is pocket change for the Izzuls and AoSes of the server, who make a point of looting half a dozen dungeons on a daily basis. (Incidentally, Tekill's estimate of 20k for a day of concentrated grinding is a massive underestimation, Lin netted around that much for one solo run through Oghrann alone!) Ghost and Ink have reportedly accumulated over 1M just through the leveling process, though results will vary considerably depending on whether you hop to another dungeon after looting it or not. (Gurzhuk, for instance, is in mid-epics now with well under 500k, even accounting for all the gear he's bought off Mudd, because he mostly just circled through whatever dungeon he could smash through on his own.)

At the same time, 2M is a figure many other players have never even seen, and never might, as they attest to in this thread. (I know a multitude of others I expect would hold a similar view if they posted here, though I'm only certain about a few of them.) To some extent, this is sometimes because they spend the gold when they do get it, and don't bother grinding for it if they don't have an immediate need. Offering a few of my characters as an example: Lin's probably wearing a cool million gold's worth of epic equipment, and has close to another million saved up for guild business, making her easily the richest character I've ever had. Meanwhile, Virin's net worth definitely exceeds 1M just in store-bought items (ninja boots and an epic piwafwi alone cover that!), and probably at least a million more in loot, but she's perpetually bankrupt, and I can't think of a single item worth >100k that wasn't given to her by one friend or another.

[Ghost]

Absolute no on any pay-to-RCR for me. RP doesn't start at 30.

[Steve]

Absolute no on any pay-to-RCR for me. RP doesn't start at 30.

RP doesn’t start only at Level 30. On this we definitely agree.

But honestly the player base is far greater and more diverse than us, in opinion.

My point is here that many players cannot re-Level, and for both subjective reasons amd poor decisions/planning, they want to fix their game by fixing their experience, not having to redo the experience.

And furthermore, how many long form, time invested Events or campaigns are being run for Lowbies? Unless you actually build that ball field in the corn field of LowbieVille, talent is going to run quick to the Stadium play with retractable roof and craft beers.

[Louvaine]

You can get to level 30 by role-playing at campfire, let's not pretend that's difficult. It's just time consuming in a situation where there are no stakes. I do agree about role-playing certain power levels and having them gone. It's odd. But it's a game, I'm sure it can be looked over.

It's very interesting to see people's perspective on gold. I thought everyone had abundance of it or access to it. Take Derik for example. If he needed a million to obtain a sword to slay some demon, would he not have role-play avenue to ask for it? I'm pretty sure he could find bunch of ways. Role-play gives more power than gold. As it should be.

Tying back to the original topic, the system as it stands does offer RCR token for role-play. Only not to fix one's mistakes when building. That is a tough one.

[Ghost]

And furthermore, how many long form, time invested Events or campaigns are being run for Lowbies?

Few. Of course. Because people continue to level. And they level honestly really fast.

[Valleriani]

Absolute no on any pay-to-RCR for me. RP doesn't start at 30.

But for a gold sink, if RP doesn't start at 30 then surely it's not a big deal to do this? As in does it really matter if they fix their character? RP is important not levelling. Issue I have when people RCR they can suddenly jump from being a hellfire warlock to a monk on the same RCR, unless the character has died, it should be somewhat restrictive, same name/same base class/etc/etc. But that is probably overly difficult anyways.

However, maybe even a 75%-80% token instead of a basic 50%. Somewhere in the middle. Where it still leaves you not RCR'ing 'just because' and higher then 50%. Either or it's not too concerning but I think you'll retain more players if there was something. This games way of making characters is very easy to mess up. And I'm not saying 'flaws'. No matter what , most chars are going to have flaws/weaknesses against them, but it doesn't feel good when you pick the wrong thing, and while we can say 'that's how it goes', sometimes I think it's okay to throw them a bone to satisfy people.

[Ghost]

Historically gold sinks have no effect. Teleport has a gold cost on BGTSCC, not in PnP. This was purely a gold sink decision. And you guys spam that teleport like no tomorrow.

And as I recently pointed out, I earned around 1,5 million gold over 4 weeks by leveling a new character with no muling and no RCR.

Gold sinks also make things unfair in my view. It benefits the people who grind most. Gold is easy if you want it to be. But if you spend 90% of your time online RPing, gold accumulation will obviously be lower. Giving more stuff to do with gold adds more encouragement for gold grinding. I'd rather not add encouragements for grinding.

I also actually would prefer - personally - if RCRing into the same character was actively discouraged. It is Retired Character Refund. Again, this is just my personal opinion, but I wish RCR wasn't used for character development stuff, or significant changes to characters. It's OK to fix some stuff you didn't realise, but I dislike the significant change of ability points and classes (especially base classes).

[Valleriani]

I also actually would prefer - personally - if RCRing into the same character was actively discouraged. It is Retired Character Refund. Again, this is just my personal opinion, but I wish RCR wasn't used for character development stuff, or significant changes to characters. It's OK to fix some stuff you didn't realise, but I dislike the significant change of ability points and classes (especially base classes).

I wouldn't disagree if there was a more restrictive way for a non-death refund into the same character. As in you must keep the same base classes and whatnot. In terms of fixing some stuff you didn't realize, a feat or two, but still requiring most things, like the base classes and whatnot. It's most likely a pipe dream though and too difficult to create. It would do my head in if someone was a wizard one day, then fighter the next month. To me it 'on the same char' it should simply be a means to fix minor booboos.

Giving more stuff to do with gold adds more encouragement for gold grinding. I'd rather not add encouragements for grinding.

I can understand this too. Though for me I like to break in between RP to do a grind for an hour just to clear my mind a bit. Not everyones cup of tea though. Make a whole RP point system where as they RP they gain points, and could spend them on said things like the above. BUT AGAIN that's probably off topic, though if we're talking about shifting it to reward RPers instead probably ways of doing it.

[DaloLorn]

I also actually would prefer - personally - if RCRing into the same character was actively discouraged. It is Retired Character Refund. Again, this is just my personal opinion, but I wish RCR wasn't used for character development stuff, or significant changes to characters. It's OK to fix some stuff you didn't realise, but I dislike the significant change of ability points and classes (especially base classes).

While I understand, and to some extent agree with this sentiment (if only because some people can abuse it)... character development rebuilds strike me as better than the other available post-30 approaches of endless power creep or static characters. There is, of course, another option: Perpetually retiring characters to make room for new ones. But not all of the stories told on BG end shortly after reaching the level cap, no more than they start the moment you're 30.

I haven't had many opportunities to use it for such myself (I don't RCR a lot in the first place), but the development rebuilds I've been seeing from other players have all felt pretty justified. Cassian pivoting away from magic after being cut off from the Weave and Tarina's slow spiral into abomination have been some of the better examples I'm aware of.

[Deragnost]

Although I agree that we should have one RCR per CD-key / IP-address a year (excluded the 100% RCR period for major changes), I completely and sincerely disagree on the RL payment for it, as well as gold payment.

The RL money - it would be just another pay to win, and Larian showed us all perfectly that it's possible to actually have fun in a game without microtransactions.

The IG gold - although I'm sure there's a lot of people around the game who have 30 millions in their coffers, not all do. And if we say, "10 mil for a free RCR" it would be to benefit not only those who actually have the gold, but also it would benefit only those who have either a lot of time, or like to grind 90% of the time. Nothing against them mind, it's a matter of fairness for everyone (and "life isn't fair" is merely an excuse, life can be fair if you put your mind to it, and decide to make it so - "life isn't fair" are the words of those who gave up).


My suggestion that could make a 50% RCR more bearable to most level 30s is this:

- remove the CAP to level 20, like it was before the rule was introduced.

Easy. Clean. You get some epic levels back, you'll have to level up a bit again, sure - but it won't be a loss like it would be otherwise.

You messed up a few feats or whatnot, you can fix it without losing too much.

[Steve]

And furthermore, how many long form, time invested Events or campaigns are being run for Lowbies?

Few. Of course. Because people continue to level. And they level honestly really fast.

Which in itself is….problematic. Chicken or the egg, right?

[artemitavik]

Historically gold sinks have no effect. Teleport has a gold cost on BGTSCC, not in PnP. This was purely a gold sink decision. And you guys spam that teleport like no tomorrow.

And as I recently pointed out, I earned around 1,5 million gold over 4 weeks by leveling a new character with no muling and no RCR.

Gold sinks also make things unfair in my view. It benefits the people who grind most. Gold is easy if you want it to be. But if you spend 90% of your time online RPing, gold accumulation will obviously be lower. Giving more stuff to do with gold adds more encouragement for gold grinding. I'd rather not add encouragements for grinding.

I also actually would prefer - personally - if RCRing into the same character was actively discouraged. It is Retired Character Refund. Again, this is just my personal opinion, but I wish RCR wasn't used for character development stuff, or significant changes to characters. It's OK to fix some stuff you didn't realise, but I dislike the significant change of ability points and classes (especially base classes).

I would actually just like it stop being called RCR, because... really... no one uses it for that most of the time. I know a lot of people that will RCR because of character development, or IC religion change, or skill update through RP, any number of super good IC reasons, and some OOC reasons too like when minor changes show up that no longer synergize their feats the way they normally would before (yes this happens pretty much every rules update to at least someone). however, I think 1-2 a year for free would not be super terrible. Otherwise, how do you show your RP development in your skills and classes when there is none mechanically to be had (not that it would be rquired of course, I"m perfectly happy with my current build atm)

[Kitunenotsume]

I also actually would prefer - personally - if RCRing into the same character was actively discouraged. It is Retired Character Refund. Again, this is just my personal opinion, but I wish RCR wasn't used for character development stuff, or significant changes to characters. It's OK to fix some stuff you didn't realise, but I dislike the significant change of ability points and classes (especially base classes).

I would actually just like it stop being called RCR, because... really... no one uses it for that most of the time. I know a lot of people that will RCR because of character development, or IC religion change, or skill update through RP, any number of super good IC reasons, and some OOC reasons too like when minor changes show up that no longer synergize their feats the way they normally would before (yes this happens pretty much every rules update to at least someone). however, I think 1-2 a year for free would not be super terrible. Otherwise, how do you show your RP development in your skills and classes when there is none mechanically to be had (not that it would be rquired of course, I"m perfectly happy with my current build atm)

Building on this, it's also a bit dissonant - we have an opinion from a prominent member of the DM team stating that RCRs should be discouraged, while at the same time informed by the Dev team endorsing that even minor changes forced by server-side tweaks are best done through RCR because of how things like global feat distribution was handled.

I think that establishing a shared staff opinion on what RCRs represent and why they should be used would help clarify the situation a lot.

[Green Monster]

Upon further reflection and taking in the comments of others, I no longer endorse the idea of RCR for money, real or otherwise. I now stand by my 2nd suggestion of 1 100% RCR per CD Key per real world calendar year.

[Tekill]

Upon further reflection and taking in the comments of others, I no longer endorse the idea of RCR for money, real or otherwise. I now stand by my 2nd suggestion of 1 100% RCR per CD Key per real world calendar year.

I 2nd it. All in favor say Aye.