Anti-botting blog response

[Guest]

Posted on the blog by Sarah

Hello Everyone,

Thanks for mounds of feedback you gave about the feature we’ve been testing on TC3 over the weekend. There was a lot to read through… In your feedback you’ve asked some excellent questions and improved our thinking on how to approach the problem of bot-like behavior. In particular, you’ve given us invaluable information about how this should be tuned. Tests over the weekend showed that what we were trying worked - we’ll relax the tuning with tomorrow’s push.
We’re not going to push anything like this to EA-Land anytime soon until it is properly tuned.

In the mean time we will try to not affect you (monetarily, emotionally, and otherwise!).

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>


We’re not going to push anything like this to EA-Land anytime soon until it is properly tuned.

[/ QUOTE ]

I particularly enjoyed the line above. I'm glad to see that Test Center 3 is being used for testing, and that the team isn't going to push something into EA-Land prematurely only to see it backfire later.

 

[imported_Mavric]

<blockquote><hr>

Tests over the weekend showed that what we were trying worked

[/ QUOTE ]
This line has me going, HMMMMMMMMMMM

 

[imported_CherryBomb]

<blockquote><hr>

Tests over the weekend showed that what we were trying worked

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure it did work! It was foolproof. I should be commenting in the blog, but I am tired of having to create new ID's for it.

CherryBomb

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

Tests over the weekend showed that what we were trying worked

[/ QUOTE ]
This line has me going, HMMMMMMMMMMM

[/ QUOTE ]

There are botters in TC3? And they ran them away?

I thought they were trying to get rid of botting, unless there is botting going on, how do they know it worked.

Seems like it reduced anyones pay that liked to play the money part of the game.

But, I am sure it worked for its real implementation.

 

[legscroft]

I'm wondering what planet the devs are on?

 

[imported_Dali Dalinza]

<blockquote><hr>

I'm wondering what planet the devs are on?

[/ QUOTE ]

Players are from TSO, devs are from EA-Land

.

 

[legscroft]

i'm from tso as well

i mean i don't have a clue how they test and measure their crap...it's all so WRONG!

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

I'm wondering what planet the devs are on?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm just wondering what the devs are on period?

 

[legscroft]

lol, very good point.

 

[Guest]

Heres a novel idea.

The botters use a program to bot. Why not change EALands game code so their program doesn't work?

No working bot program, no bots.

Somehow the pizza program knows what ingredients the players have. Why not do something so that the game code does not allow that information to be seen by the bot program. Or it randomizes the information.

They had a similiar thing in DiabloII, people could use a packet sniffer to spot rare items on a vendor. The dev changed it so the packets were random. That solved that issue.

 

[Guest]

I can just a picture a little doogie to all the pizza sniffing their the players pockets to find bots...how cute. A little hump here and a little there.

<blockquote><hr>

Heres a novel idea.

The botters use a program to bot. Why not change EALands game code so their program doesn't work?

No working bot program, no bots.

Somehow the pizza program knows what ingredients the players have. Why not do something so that the game code does not allow that information to be seen by the bot program. Or it randomizes the information.

They had a similiar thing in DiabloII, people could use a packet sniffer to spot rare items on a vendor. The dev changed it so the packets were random. That solved that issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats sounds like a novel idea but with the TSO program being so out of date would it really be compatible?

 

[Guest]

How about do they share what they are on?

 

[imported_Danny Dots]

I'm glad they aren't putting this into EA Land. I didn't think it was a very good solution since many people were in uproar about it, which I can understand.

 

[imported_TraciRK]

Really, then we would all be shiny happy people!

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

Heres a novel idea.

The botters use a program to bot. Why not change EALands game code so their program doesn't work?

No working bot program, no bots.

Somehow the pizza program knows what ingredients the players have. Why not do something so that the game code does not allow that information to be seen by the bot program. Or it randomizes the information.

They had a similiar thing in DiabloII, people could use a packet sniffer to spot rare items on a vendor. The dev changed it so the packets were random. That solved that issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

The bot programs use pixel reading, they look at certain points on the screen and if the pixel matches a certain criteria, then the message is true.
Thats why they did the screen shift thing.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>



The bot programs use pixel reading, they look at certain points on the screen and if the pixel matches a certain criteria, then the message is true.
Thats why they did the screen shift thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oooo I didn't understand how the bot programs worked. Interesting.

 

[imported_CrazyGirl]

<blockquote><hr>

Posted on the blog by Sarah

[...] In the mean time we will try to not affect you (monetarily, emotionally, and otherwise!). [...]

[/ QUOTE ]

ROFLMAO

 

[Guest]

That cracked me up too. LMAO

 

[imported_debslee]

I am already emotionally affected - and this was before TSO!!! LOL
*starts twitching*

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

I'm glad they aren't putting this into EA Land. I didn't think it was a very good solution since many people were in uproar about it, which I can understand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh they are, just not until it is properly tuned

 

[MysticNyte]

The properly tuned is...

With what they was discussing if they threw it on EALand the only ones left might be the 2% botters cause everyone else would cancel their accounts

Cause I'm sure not going to pay to play a game I am restricted to how much simoleons I can make a week.

I'm one of the lucky few that play like 10 hours a day...so if I was restricted and not able to play and have fun, there's lots of onlines out there to pay and play besides this one

 

[Guest]

why limit 98% because of 2%? i don't get it. if its that much of a problem remove it, don't penalize the rest. we are here to have fun and make money. we can't if we are limited. limits=no fun. maybe i don't get what is wrong, just doesn't seem fair, sorry.

 

[disturbedmale31]

this is an idea that ea could of done about the salary cap issue in tc3 ok if you made 50 dollars an item say after a few it goes down a dollar then after a few more it goes down another dollar ok so after a while till it got to 1 dollar then you quit what ever you was doing and say skill for a couple hours and while your not making money it goes back up its just an idea

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

why limit 98% because of 2%? i don't get it. if its that much of a problem remove it, don't penalize the rest. we are here to have fun and make money. we can't if we are limited. limits=no fun. maybe i don't get what is wrong, just doesn't seem fair, sorry.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not 2%, that is the percentage that will be affected in theory, the actual figure on the number of bots in game has not been specified or they simply don't know.

 

[imported_Gracie Nito]

A weekly salary cap is just too restrictive. If tuning is to be done, I believe it has to be done more frequently so that players can adjust their game play to their current status. If I log in for a few hours on Saturday and hit my earning cap, then I have little reason to login again till the next Saturday.

If I hit my earning potential in the first hour I login, I would not find it hard to do other things for a an hour or two waiting period before I could earn money again. The tuning just needs to be more frequently so we don't notice the cap.

 

[imported_Juniper Skye]

I agree. I play this game to PLAY....to work the job tracks and use the single money objects so that I can buy and build. I don't play to sit in a chat room, which is what it would amount to if I am only making $1 a crack.

 

[Zsazsa Zee]

(Thank you Calina for responding.... without your pom poms) lol

I don't mind working hard. I don't need to have it right away. I would, however, like to see results for my work.
I am glad to see that the DEVS read the EMOTIONS of the EA Land Community. Although some people are upset whenever something "negative" is being posted, it is imortant to remeber that the testing they do involves our "emotions" as well. We do need to share these with them, so that they can have a clearer picture.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

Heres a novel idea.

The botters use a program to bot. Why not change EALands game code so their program doesn't work?

No working bot program, no bots.

Somehow the pizza program knows what ingredients the players have. Why not do something so that the game code does not allow that information to be seen by the bot program. Or it randomizes the information.

They had a similiar thing in DiabloII, people could use a packet sniffer to spot rare items on a vendor. The dev changed it so the packets were random. That solved that issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

That would work to disable the existing bots, but it would only be a matter of time before somebody created a bot that could get past that. If something like that was going to work then when they implemented OWP and screen shift that would have thrown them off for a while....but it wasn't 2 months before the bots had updates that adapted. Your suggestion would probably require whole new bot programs, but it's a crapshoot as to whether the main botmaker of the game is still around to make that new bot, and whether botters would invest in the new program.....maybe he's not, and maybe they wouldn't buy it if he is.....but what if they do?

ETA: I am encouraged by the response that they *know* something is messed up. When I read that they think it worked, I took that to mean they wanted us to break it, and we did...so now that they know it needs to be adjusted, they will. Eager to see what happens when TC3 gets its next update.

 

[Guest]

*tagging to my own post*

This occurs to me. My sim that I am doing this testing in is brand new and low skilled. She is having a hard time even reaching her 3000 cap. I wonder if the fact that *most* TC3 players are new sims and not seasoned players with lots of locks and/or skills is what skewed their numbers, since those sims would have a lower earning potential than older sims higher up in the tracks. It could be that sims like my main account sims do make up that 2% that would fit into the category of hitting their caps fast. Did it say 98% of all players according to their numbers wouldnt' be affected or 98% of TC3 players.

If it was the latter, then I am willing to bet had they taken their stats in EAL it would have been significantly higher than 2% being affected, thus the reason that there was such a discrepancy in their numbers. The vast majority of people playing in TC3 now that have hit their cap fast are players who don't normally play in TC3, so if their statistics were taken in TC3, they would not have been factored in.

*ponders*

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

Since the opening of EA-Land we measured that 98% of users would not have been affected by this!

Again, we’ve been keeping track and had we turned this on when we first opened EA-Land, it would not have affected 98% of players in any way at all and we’ll work to keep it that way

[/ QUOTE ]

They were monitoring EA-Land.

Also Don't forget that TC sims merged to TC3. Not all sims there are new and unskilled.

You don't need max skills to succeed in a job track - you earn the same amount as co-workers regardless of whether you have 10 or 20.99 in the skill required for that particular track. So not sure why you think older sims would have more earning potential?

Polly

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

Since the opening of EA-Land we measured that 98% of users would not have been affected by this!

Again, we’ve been keeping track and had we turned this on when we first opened EA-Land, it would not have affected 98% of players in any way at all and we’ll work to keep it that way

[/ QUOTE ]

They were monitoring EA-Land.

Also Don't forget that TC sims merged to TC3. Not all sims there are new and unskilled.

You don't need max skills to succeed in a job track - you earn the same amount as co-workers regardless of whether you have 10 or 20.99 in the skill required for that particular track. So not sure why you think older sims would have more earning potential?

Polly

[/ QUOTE ]

You're missing the point.....yes, some sims merged to TC3 from TC, but not a whole lot of them, and yes I know that as far as the job tracks go a sim with 10 has as good an earning potential as one with 20.99, but that's not the case for the other multi-skill objects, and I play TC3 enough to know that there are not alot of sims that bother to get 20.99 in even one skill, much less a bunch of them, in fact most of them say they are *allergic* to skilling LOL. I just think that maybe those factors would have led to the numbers seeming lower than they were for those affected.

If they were monitoring EA Land tho, then that is less significant, but I still do wonder if it played a part in it since the 'seasoned player' ratio in TC3 is ALOT lower than it is in EA Land. The majority of TC3 players are new players with fresh sims, not those merged in from the first TC, particularly because they gave sims the option to move out ot TC and into a production city before they merged it. If they hadn't, the ratio wouldn't have been quite as out of balance, but still out of balance simply because there weren't that many people left in TC *to* merge either to a production city or TC3.

At any rate, it was just an 'out loud' musing because I really don't think they would have flat lied about 98% not noticing the caps, so I was trying to figure out how they came up with that figure.

 

[Guest]

I stand corrected...and am happy to be able to say that.

Now could we please get better payouts?

 

[Faenya]

-_- Uhuh.

And I've seen alot of people say "Good thing it's only like that
in TC3"

Yes ofcourse, would be awful in EA-Land. But "we" [the sims who live in TC3]
want to have fun just like everyone else. And this is not the way. We could easily hit our limit in about 6 shifts, and then what? Should we, like many have said before me, just stop playing for the rest of the week? Is this really helping? Eh, NO.

I was trying to save up for a house, for example. I could buy it for 15,000, meaning that I should have the money together in four days. So what do you do? You green, work, green, work, done. House. Tada. Now, we can't do that. Now this might be an "extreme" example because not every sim wants to buy a house right now, but I'm pretty sure you get my point. We can't do anything.

Plus..everything was fine the way it was. We can't even save up now.

Then again, if your goal is to get rid of us.. then your plan is coming along
quite nicely. :]

-Claps- Gj Devs.

Hopefully you'll hit your head and realise it.. And then suddenly say to yourself:

"Huh? Wha? Oh no, what did we do to those poor simmies on TC3?? :O We must go change it right away!!!!!" :]

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

why limit 98% because of 2%? i don't get it. if its that much of a problem remove it, don't penalize the rest. we are here to have fun and make money. we can't if we are limited. limits=no fun. maybe i don't get what is wrong, just doesn't seem fair, sorry.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not 2%, that is the percentage that will be affected in theory, the actual figure on the number of bots in game has not been specified or they simply don't know.

[/ QUOTE ]

(really just hitting reply and aiming this at the community at large, despite making use of your quote...nothing should be taken as being directed at one specific person...)

Exactly. 2% was an estimate of what proportion of the innocent non bot-using population will unfortunately be negatively effected by the current anti-bot crusade-of-the-week.

Of course, if you take into account the chilling effect of folks afraid to play for fear of being branded a cheater, you realize that 2% is an underestimate.

Scarier than EA's stance on the 2% is the "you must be a bot" attitude of the typical poster on this site. Not all of you, but enough that it was scary. 98% of you? *smirk*

Before the super-hot and active thread got locked and "replaced" with this far less-viewed one due to the other more controversial thread supposedly no longer being relevant due to the new updated memorandum from the Maxi$ Ministry of Truth (smirk), I found the analogies to socialist totalitarian government forms to be most intriguing. I suppose in the past, during the Witchunt Days, one could make an analogy to vigilante groups going around from lot to lot looking for "bots", and then reporting them to the government. A lot of innocent folks got hurt, to the point where there were heated threads right here on this site about the whole thing, with folks being so scared of being accused that they either stopped playing until it blew over or quit entirely. So yeah, it's scary when the "government" itself is "rounding folks up" willy-nilly, and says not to worry about the 2% of the population that will be falsely imprisoned.

But I think a better analogy would be the immigration issue. It's like being told we've got to do something about these "illegals", they're ruining the country, so we're going to round up all the folks of Hispanic decent and ship 'em all to Mexico. Never mind if the majority of 'em are naturally born U.S. citizens who happen to have Latino ancestry -- serves ya right for lookin' too much like a "criminal". So, to be on the safe side, and rid the country of "illegals", some sacrifices must be made, and a few "innocent" people might get deported. But don't worry: 98% of y'all are white as toast, so you got nothing to worry about. It's just the Hispanics we're targeting, so why should you care? Carry on with your normal business, and look the other way when your neighbors disappear in the night.

Sadly, if you can pull this off in the political arena, you can certainly pull off something similar in the microcosm of an online gaming community.

(not looking to start an argument about the immigration issue...just making an analogy...though it's interesting that on the immigration issue [on another site] I've been threatened with violence and tar 'n' feathered as a "race traitor"...and here, if folks speak up, they get tar 'n' feathered as a "cheater" or "obvious bot user". So, different issues of far differing seriousness...but the same lowlife tactic in use...)

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

why limit 98% because of 2%? i don't get it. if its that much of a problem remove it, don't penalize the rest. we are here to have fun and make money. we can't if we are limited. limits=no fun. maybe i don't get what is wrong, just doesn't seem fair, sorry.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not 2%, that is the percentage that will be affected in theory, the actual figure on the number of bots in game has not been specified or they simply don't know.

[/ QUOTE ]

(really just hitting reply and aiming this at the community at large, despite making use of your quote...nothing should be taken as being directed at one specific person...)

Exactly. 2% was an estimate of what proportion of the innocent non bot-using population will unfortunately be negatively effected by the current anti-bot crusade-of-the-week.

Of course, if you take into account the chilling effect of folks afraid to play for fear of being branded a cheater, you realize that 2% is an underestimate.

Scarier than EA's stance on the 2% is the "you must be a bot" attitude of the typical poster on this site. Not all of you, but enough that it was scary. 98% of you? *smirk*

Before the super-hot and active thread got locked and "replaced" with this far less-viewed one due to the other more controversial thread supposedly no longer being relevant due to the new updated memorandum from the Maxi$ Ministry of Truth (smirk), I found the analogies to socialist totalitarian government forms to be most intriguing. I suppose in the past, during the Witchunt Days, one could make an analogy to vigilante groups going around from lot to lot looking for "bots", and then reporting them to the government. A lot of innocent folks got hurt, to the point where there were heated threads right here on this site about the whole thing, with folks being so scared of being accused that they either stopped playing until it blew over or quit entirely. So yeah, it's scary when the "government" itself is "rounding folks up" willy-nilly, and says not to worry about the 2% of the population that will be falsely imprisoned.

But I think a better analogy would be the immigration issue. It's like being told we've got to do something about these "illegals", they're ruining the country, so we're going to round up all the folks of Hispanic decent and ship 'em all to Mexico. Never mind if the majority of 'em are naturally born U.S. citizens who happen to have Latino ancestry -- serves ya right for lookin' too much like a "criminal". So, to be on the safe side, and rid the country of "illegals", some sacrifices must be made, and a few "innocent" people might get deported. But don't worry: 98% of y'all are white as toast, so you got nothing to worry about. It's just the Hispanics we're targeting, so why should you care? Carry on with your normal business, and look the other way when your neighbors disappear in the night.

Sadly, if you can pull this off in the political arena, you can certainly pull off something similar in the microcosm of an online gaming community.

(not looking to start an argument about the immigration issue...just making an analogy...though it's interesting that on the immigration issue [on another site] I've been threatened with violence and tar 'n' feathered as a "race traitor"...and here, if folks speak up, they get tar 'n' feathered as a "cheater" or "obvious bot user". So, different issues of far differing seriousness...but the same lowlife tactic in use...)

[/ QUOTE ]
Two words...
De
Caf

 

[Faenya]

Well I think he's right. :]
That is just so true. x]
And you know it.

 

[Guest]

You know it!

The maxi$ ministry of truth needs to pay Donavan a late night visit!

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

Well I think he's right. :]
That is just so true. x]
And you know it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sure, I know it.
Except for the extreme fanaticism part.

 

[Guest]

Just hitting reply Donovan.
I have done a lot of data analyse work and I can tell everyone here that figures can be made to look anyway you want. If the criteria for the search is incorrect, then the results will be incorrect.
Take the way most governments work out inflation. Where I live they constantly say it runs at around 2%, yet everything that we use always seems to go up by much more.
There are very likely things they have not allowed for in their calculations.
One I can think of is that a lot of people are doing the same that I am.
When the 1st lowering of payouts came through I pretty well stopped playing the game the way I normally do.
Where as I would normally be working on making money towards my goals I gave up on that and have hardly gone into the game at all since.
Lots of us are just waiting to see what happens, not playing the game the way we normally would.
Because of that alone, a true indication of what percentage of players would or would not be effected by this could not be achieved.
To say that 98% of us would not be effected by not being able to save more than 500 each week towards our goals is ridiculous.
The figures they have come up with only shows they have no idea of how a large percentage of us do play the game.
We have to remember that none of the devs have actually got in and played the game. They frequent the game yes, but none can form any opinion from actually having the played the game for any decent length of time. Not the way us regular subscribed players can anyway.
With that in mind think about how a dev who does not know normal game play would be able to think of what to include in a database search or not.
With that in mind think about someone who is trying to justify a certain requirement applying the criteria for a search.
I am not saying that they have deliberately cheated to get the figures they got.
What I am saying is that influences to achieve a certain goal can effect the way a person can justify things to themselves.
They can justify their figures anyway they want, this player for one knows from almost 4 years of actual game play, that what they have come with will effect the majority of players.

 

[Guest]

you all know that once they figure out how too stop the botting the people who made it in the first place will have a newer updated version of a bot too put right back into the game again.... it just like conterfeit money.... people can do it no matter how much it changes... and in my opinion with the way the payouts are now im sure they are working on a way where the dev's cannot even see it...

the game is alright but it does need some improvements and i just think those improvements need too be fixed before all of this botting stuff needs to be fixed.... im am not a botter but i will sit there and pizza for 5 hours too make some money so i can go buy a pizza table if i want one ,,,, just like im sure alot of other people are doing now too

 

[Guest]

I'm not using any 3rd party software either, but I suppose the way they are looking at it now, I would be classed as doing bot like activity.
When I look to make money in the game I don't wont to stuff about and take ages to do it, so I used to have 6 accounts setup for doing code.
I would do 2 lots of code at the same time using a chart I have and before the down sizing of the payouts could make 17,500 an hour. It then went down to a little over 5k and became not worth doing and keeping the 6 accounts.
The measures they are putting in now will stop the botters.
No matter how they go about it they cannot make enough to pay for their subscriptions. You make your 500 each week and thats it, no matter how quickly and secretly you can make it. Unless you spend it on something that returns the money to EA you simply cannot make any more. So yes it will stop not only botters, but also everyone else from being able to take advantage of the buyback or sell through outside sources.
Trouble is, it will also take so much away from the game. Working towards buying anything of high value, like islands and rares will be virtually impossible.
In fact just trying to set yourself up in the game will become a major effort that I think many will find to hard.

 

[Guest]

what? IF i just understood what you just said everyone will be capped to what they could make in one week? that just will NOT work.........................
Right now you cannot buy a piece of property to call your own for under 9,000 dollars... so it will take you about 4 months to do that.. whatever....
then you would have too buy everything to start whatever business you would like too open... another 6 months to do that... WHATEVER.....
So in just 1 year for my 4 accounts.. 2 mine and 2 wifes (40X12= 480.00) and that is just paying to play a GAME and where would we be at....BROKE in a game ummmmm i might just have too think about this a little longer if i really want too stay with this game....
I seriously think that the Dev's really need too think and remember that this is a GAME not real life here people play this game too relax and have some fun getting away from real life.... but what fun would it be too be broke in a game and no light at the end of the tunnel to get ahead....
I know for a fact it does NOT take Millions too run a multi player game so i do not understand what the big problem here is... I read somplace that there is around 30,000 Paying Subscribers in this game.... and i would bet that alot of those PAYING SUBSCRIBERS also have more than 1 account so whoever is getting this money from all of us is making more than 30,000 a month... ok fiine webiste fees and server fees.... ummm lets see here.... both totaling no more than 300.00 a month and thats really giving them alot of extra push there... so a total of 29,700 a month extra for what? oh wait i forgot about the anti-bot thing....oops theres another 100.00 but should be a 1 time fee.... ahhh man tell that the poor gets poorer and the rich gets richer please.... lol...
MY POINT HERE IS IF THEY FOLLOW THROUGH WHITH THEIR PLANS EVERYONE WILL END UP EITHER GOING TO THE FREE PLAY OR JUST PLAIN QUIT THE GAME COMPLETELY.... AND THEN THEY WILL SEE WHERE THEY MESSED UP....

 

[Guest]

TTL

Everybody keeps saying that if they take away 'cashout' then there will be no need for this cap......but I'm not entirely sure of that because of the situation with inflation that we had in the old game. Rares costing tens of millions of dollars and such. With the cap being like it is now, which research has shown is ALOT better than when it first started but still a cap, that will keep the prices from being inflated back up to where they were with eh cost of rares. Yes, they'll still get high and there will still be lots of long-term goals within the game, but it won't get SO high that people feel they have 'no choice' but to cheat if they want those rares.

 

[imported_aldldl]

<blockquote><hr>

TTL

Everybody keeps saying that if they take away 'cashout' then there will be no need for this cap......but I'm not entirely sure of that because of the situation with inflation that we had in the old game. Rares costing tens of millions of dollars and such. With the cap being like it is now, which research has shown is ALOT better than when it first started but still a cap, that will keep the prices from being inflated back up to where they were with eh cost of rares. Yes, they'll still get high and there will still be lots of long-term goals within the game, but it won't get SO high that people feel they have 'no choice' but to cheat if they want those rares.

[/ QUOTE ]
Rares should be... rare...

It is the other costs that should be focused on (like building, seats, dining room tables things like that. I honestly dont care how much a rare costs as long as I get to build my lot (and yes furnish it) and tip other houses for services rendered.

 

[imported_Gracie Nito]

Without sufficient drains built into the economy to drain simoleans back out of the game, the city will become flooded with too much money, thus causing inflation to take hold again and prices will rise. The more money players have, the more they are willing to spend for what they want and the cost of many objects will go up.

Uploading Custom content is really the only new drain built into the economy. This is one reason that player to player transactions do not count towards these earning caps. Money is not made or drained from the economy. It only moves from one user to another.

The cash out feature would be a new way to drain simoleans back out of the economy and balance with the cashin feature.

The best way to combat the overproduction of simoleans by botters is to introduce even more drains so the excesses can be drained back out of the economy. Some of the suggested new drains would be the ability to change our appearances even more. The option to change our heads and the availability of more clothing choices are the best ideas for new drains that I have heard yet. Customizing objects has proved to be a succesful drain and I believe customizing our sims would be just as successful.

 

[Guest]

ok so some research is showing you that things will get better?
could you try and give a little bit of insite here on what you know..

cause from what i can tell right now i feel like a "street bum" going around window shopping at a Million Dollar store (cannot think of any names) knowing it would take me 2 years too be able too buy everything it would take just too open a store of some sort just too have alot of people come in...

for those of us who do not use the ATM's for extra cash flow it makes it really hard to even play this game as it sits right now.... ive been playing pizza all week long about 4-5 hours a day and can barely make it .... between paying that repairman and restocking the fridge and trying too buy newer stuff...

i really think if the payouts are going too stay where they are,,,, a normal shower that (everyone has) shouldnt be NO MORE than 100.00 but good luck finding one that cheap.... and i have 8 of them now and 8 toilets costed me a fortune just in those things...... they really need too decrease the prices of the objects in this game too match the payouts.... its just that simple... if they did that then there wouldnt be a need for someone too cheat at all and the rest of US who do not cheat wouldnt have to hear about the cheaters.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

TTL

Everybody keeps saying that if they take away 'cashout' then there will be no need for this cap......but I'm not entirely sure of that because of the situation with inflation that we had in the old game. Rares costing tens of millions of dollars and such. With the cap being like it is now, which research has shown is ALOT better than when it first started but still a cap, that will keep the prices from being inflated back up to where they were with eh cost of rares. Yes, they'll still get high and there will still be lots of long-term goals within the game, but it won't get SO high that people feel they have 'no choice' but to cheat if they want those rares.

[/ QUOTE ]
Rares should be... rare...

It is the other costs that should be focused on (like building, seats, dining room tables things like that. I honestly dont care how much a rare costs as long as I get to build my lot (and yes furnish it) and tip other houses for services rendered.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh I definitely agree that rares should be rare....no arguing that. And I am the one that loves having long-term goals in the game, so I have no problem with that either, but the way it was before the merge, if you were separating yourself from the big exploit and purposely not taking part in it, then you basically couldn't do anything toward earning a rare because of how FAR out of reach the rare prices got for even Joe Average Player. So yeah the ones that went to the 50k per case payout houses had a fair to midline shot at it, but if you didn't you were just screwed. I have no probem seeing a Pink Poodle priced at a million-3 million, *that* is a fair price for a rare item within the game, and one that a person could probably reach within a year's time or so, but when the prices start getting in the tens of millions and even hundreds of millions.....that's a problem.

As far as building costs go, It is possible to build some nice, albeit plain, lots until you build up money for the 'luxury' stuff like pillars and so forth. That's stuff that makes a house look 'fancy and unique' but is not really a vital part of building, so I have no problem paying extra for those if I want them on my lots......but I do realize that I am in the minority with that thinking. But really if you think about it there are usually noticeable differences in RL between a $200,000 USD home and a $500,000 or 1 million dollar USD home. Those that want the fancy stuff can work for it....those that don't can have a regular house at the regular prices.

 

[Guest]

you do have some good points about the "rares" and the point about working for what you want..... BUT the avarage person playing this game does not want too take a year too reach their goal... maybe a month of playing but not a year and the way it sits right now it will be a year for the avarage person too get everything they want in their money lot,skill lot, whatever they choose too open... im sure that everyones dream in this game is too have a lot where everyone come too..


edited for typos...

 

[Guest]

the avarage person playing this game

There is no 'average' player playing TSO. You have the old players with size 8 lots and a ton of objects from the merger. And you have the relatively few new players who have squat. As many have explained in this forum, cash-out will not effectively work if you have money objects creating Simoleans out of thin air.