1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Economy Poll #1

Discussion in 'Official Polls' started by MooseBobby, Sep 20, 2019.

?

Which Economy change would you like to see introduced on the server?

Poll closed Oct 4, 2019.
  1. Change A

    2 vote(s)
    13.3%
  2. Change B1

    5 vote(s)
    33.3%
  3. Change B2

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. Change C

    1 vote(s)
    6.7%
  5. Change D

    4 vote(s)
    26.7%
  6. Other Idea: Comment Below

    3 vote(s)
    20.0%
  1. MooseBobby

    MooseBobby
    Expand Collapse
    Leader of Nexus
    Staff Member Donator

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2016
    Messages:
    427
    Likes Received:
    612
    Current Situation
    Currently the economy on Civwars is essentially a 100% diamond backed economy. With each diamond being able to be sold to the shop for $250 and any other way to make large sums of money being very limited (voting, crate keys, etc). Some players are unhappy about this and want to see more items added to the shop, more ways to make money, etc. Think of this as a vote to see if we want to add a heavier economy aspect to the game than there is currently.

    Definitions:
    "Diamond Standard": The notion that the currency on Civwars is backed by Diamonds only and that "X" money is equal to 1 diamond.

    Proposed Changes:

    Change A:

    A lot of players would like to see more blocks added to the shop, in particular concrete and clay. Change A proposes that we keep the Diamond Standard for earn able money, but simply expand upon the shop to include a variety of building blocks for relatively cheap prices (like we have now for wood and stone) in an attempt to get players to build nicer structures.

    Change B:
    Change B plan builds off the ideas of Change A but instead of keeping the Diamond standard we introduce a fully market economy into the server. This would mean most items in the game would be added to the shop and most would have their own unique sell and buy price. OP items would NOT be in the shops. (And most items easily farmed such as gold, iron, and emeralds would be nerfed to prevent inflation and abuse).
    • Change B1: Change B1 would be an economy based around supply and demand to an admin. For example if one player sells 10 stacks of cobblestone, the quantity of cobblestone in the market goes up and the sell prices go down.
    • Change B2: Change B2 would be a flat rate economy based around static prices for each item. This would mean if someone sold 10 stacks of cobblestone, the sell price of cobblestone wouldn't change.
    Change C:
    This plan would include a fully hashed out economy with either Options B1 or B2 as the basis for the admin shop but would also include other means to make money such as achievements, jobs plugin, even quests maybe.

    Change D:

    Additionally there is an option here to not change the economy at all. Some players might think this would change the server to much and are opposed to it. The current shop would be kept as it is with no additions in the foreseeable future and the Diamond Standard would remain the basic economic unit.

    Other Info:
    If you have any other ideas, suggestions, or criticism please leave them in the comments below. If you wish to elaborate on one of these options please do so in the greatest details. This is just to see what the community wants to see added to the game, it won't mean it will be added 100% This thread and poll will stay open for 14 days after posting.
    Make sure to check out the Poll guidelines > here < before responding!

    Thank you
     
  2. Cody

    Cody
    Expand Collapse
    Part of the elite nexus retard squad
    Donator

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2017
    Messages:
    154
    Likes Received:
    91
    "More money" Isn't always a good idea, imo, it just inflates the economy, making it look like there is more money in the system, when in reality, it would just hurt it in the long run. Also, with the discovery of the banknote dupe AND losing all your money on death, there isn't a feasible way to store the money. Now, you might say "B-but cody! The diamond standard already does that!" It does do that, however it's at a flat, and reasonable rate. (Also quests are fucking obnoxious and usually give a measly amount of money, as compared to how long you lagged because of the 500 fireworks that set off lmfao)
    This would be extremely detrimental, not only is the money not going anywhere else, but, lets say, Redtilldead and Demonofrazgriz buy a fuckton of quartz (I realize neither players play, and the former is banned, but this is for example) the quartz price will rise drastically, and lets say, a player that is newer/is not neutral wants to use quartz to build, well, tough shit! They need to mine that fucking quartz because holy fuck its 2k a stack!
    This is the most rational approach out of all of them, Change D is just reactionary and refuses to allow any change to happen to the server, while Changes B and C change the economy far too much. This would allow players to get resources that would be "Obnoxious" to obtain (Like concrete) while keeping a standard that is flat, and will not influx because some jackass neutral jacked up the prices to a obscene amount.

    Personally, I would like to see changes that would encourage players to trade more, and discourage scamming and the like (For example, a trading plugin in which, you have to accept the terms for both sides before you trade) Maybe bring back the chest shop, but at a much cheaper price to allow newer players to compete in it.

    tl;dr Keep diamond standard, add new blocks and encourage player to player trade, not player to server
     
  3. TheFlagCourier

    TheFlagCourier
    Expand Collapse
    Tzar of CivDev
    Staff Member Developer Discord Booster Donator

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2016
    Messages:
    52
    Likes Received:
    107
    I don't always agree with @Cody, and usually discount him due to lack of interaction. But I'll be damned if this isn't a nice, rational, hill to stand on. Maybe an 'E' option could be added - a 'Option C' re-based on top of 'A' rather than 'B'? I don't have any supporting arguments for it at the moment, but it's probably worth considering.

    Regardless what the final vote is, I'll definitely be looking into this. My only concern is that we would need to restrict items from being traded this way. We don't exactly want an event where trades from a vault to a battlefield are possible. Not in this manner - It's too much like another method people have used in the past.
     
    Boywolfpup, Cody and MooseBobby like this.
  4. Cody

    Cody
    Expand Collapse
    Part of the elite nexus retard squad
    Donator

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2017
    Messages:
    154
    Likes Received:
    91
    I mean, most trades already happen at spawn. I may be understanding you completely wrong, but what I got from it is you are worried about someone being in a vault, trading items with players in the battlefield. If I am right about that being your worry, that can be solved by a maximum block range, say 50-60 block radius, or simply make the command unusable in combat.
     
  5. TheFlagCourier

    TheFlagCourier
    Expand Collapse
    Tzar of CivDev
    Staff Member Developer Discord Booster Donator

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2016
    Messages:
    52
    Likes Received:
    107
    IF the plugin supports the block range. Part of the point of such a plugin would be long-distance trades, though. As for blocking in combat, we'd only be able to do so if the target was in combat tag - the mule runner on the battlefield simply has to avoid the center of conflict as best they can. Most trades in the previous exploit happened just outside of combat.
     
  6. Cody

    Cody
    Expand Collapse
    Part of the elite nexus retard squad
    Donator

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2017
    Messages:
    154
    Likes Received:
    91
    Ah, well, if it is possible to do something like that, that would be great, I don't remember/I didn't play when the trade exploit happened, so I wouldn't know how it was exploited.