-
Hail Guest! We're looking for Community Content Contribuitors to Stratics. If you would like to write articles, fan fiction, do guild or shard event recaps, it's simple. Find out how in this thread: Community Contributions
-
Greetings Guest, Having Login Issues? Check this thread!
-
Hail Guest!, Please take a moment to read this post reminding you all of the importance of Account Security.
-
Hail Guest! Please read the new announcement concerning the upcoming addition to Stratics. You can find the announcement Here!
Marvellous. I now feel an idiot for having reassured people that the patch notes clearly suggest the "Trade deals can be changed once per real world week and persist indefinitely", when 'indefinitely' apparently is completely misleading. Maybe they mean the same deal renews if paid for again, or maybe something else, who knows - or rather, who both knows and is able to actually tell us what is the case.
Honestly, I'm sick of having to try guess what the hell people at EA actually MEAN when they write things.
Honestly, I'm sick of having to try guess what the hell people at EA actually MEAN when they write things.
I'm in the same boat, especially posting the other day "No no, they said 'indefinitely'!". The designers were acting like real politicians with a misleading statement, weren't they, not those running for governor!
Last edited:
2 Million X 4 = 8 mill per month X 12 = aaverage 100 million per year X number of cities = really a good gold sink but not really realistic for the shards with low populations.
There are 243 governorship positions (8 cities x 27 shards). If all 243 positions were filled and all governors negotiated a new trade deal each week and make no changes mid-week, a total of 25.272 billion gold would be removed from the game in one year (243 cities x 52 weeks x 2 million).
Unfortunately, even in the first election, there wasn't full participation in the election. Only 172 governors were elected and who knows how many of the remaining 71 positions from the June 2013 election will be filled by the EMs, especially on shards that currently don't have their own assigned and active EM. (Currently this seems to be Balhae, Europa, Izumo, Mizuho, Mugen, Origin, and Wakoku. I think even though Napa's EM steps down at the end of June, he/she has been actively recruiting for characters to fill Napa's empty governorships.)
Maybe Kyronix or the EMs will clarify soon whether or not it is intentional for the trade deals to only last one week. It would also be helpful to know if they do only last a week, whether that's one week from the date they're started or if they all expire on a certain day of the week that is based on the day of the week when the election results were finalized, or perhaps some other schedule.
From what I've observed on Europa, they are lasting for one week from the deal being made.
I think it's nine cities Tina. *counts on fingers*, 1.Britain, 2. Skara, 3. Yew, 4. New Magincia, 6. Jhelom, 7. Moonglow, 8. Trinsic, 9. Vesper.
I'm glad Nujelm's a Sultanate and Cove's a dump as I was running out of fingers there!
Actually Tina its only a gold sink if the gold is raised by a town to activate the trade deal. I imagine a lot of cities won't have the gold support to activate a weekly trade deal. The gold sink estimates will most likely be a great deal lower than those above.
Last edited:
I'd change the 1 week for 1 month. Would be more realistic and Governors would still be able to change the buff 3 times while their mandate ...
Oops....you're right! Don't know why I typed an 8 instead of a 9. Must have been reverting to the old number of faction towns or something. I think the rest of the math is correct though: 9 cities x 27 shards = 243 governors. 243 governors x 52 x 2 million = 25.272 billion gold (potentially).
Like Lady CaT and Wolfman said, I think it's doubtful many governors will be able to motivate people enough to make donations in that amount or will feel generous enough to dump in that amount themselves every week. 16 weeks (more or less) at 2 million per week may be more than some people can afford to do if they think that's what they need to pony up themselves (if no one else chips in) to remain a popular candidate as a governor in future elections.
This is a definite bummer. I was going to posture to run next time on a lesser populated shard. But seeing as though it will likely just be me supporting myself on Origin, the city buffs would get extraordinarily expensive quickly.
Two million gold isn't really anything by modern standards. There are individual rares which sell, and sell quickly, for prices that would pay off a trade deal for years. The problems are the associated loyalty grind and the trivial nature of the buffs.
I greatly suspect that the intent was for the trade deals to be subsidized by the only people who can be reliably counted upon to care about tiny buffs to critical stats; namely the PVP community, sustaining their loyalty through completing champ spawns and donating a small amount of revenue to keep the trade deals going.
The issue, of course, is that the PVP community has no reason to care about more than one or two cities per shard, tops. Someone gets in, picks the three best buffs, and then no one else has any incentive to want to go pay for the same buffs a second time in a different city. If you're a run of the mill PVM player who doesn't really go to Felucca, you're not really going to care enough about such small buffs to go out of your way.
I greatly suspect that the intent was for the trade deals to be subsidized by the only people who can be reliably counted upon to care about tiny buffs to critical stats; namely the PVP community, sustaining their loyalty through completing champ spawns and donating a small amount of revenue to keep the trade deals going.
The issue, of course, is that the PVP community has no reason to care about more than one or two cities per shard, tops. Someone gets in, picks the three best buffs, and then no one else has any incentive to want to go pay for the same buffs a second time in a different city. If you're a run of the mill PVM player who doesn't really go to Felucca, you're not really going to care enough about such small buffs to go out of your way.
Last edited:
Publish 81 Notes: The trade deal buff can be changed once per week and is supposed to persist indefinitely according to the publish notes.
Upon accepting the office a Governor may:
Upon accepting the office a Governor may:
- Grant a title to a citizen by accessing the context menu on the City Stone
- Open a Trade Deal with an NPC guild
- Trade deals cost 2,000,000gp from funds obtained from the City Treasury.
- The City Treasury can be donated to by dropping gold or checks on the City Herald near each City Stone.
- The City Treasury is subject to a daily 5% reduction above 10,000gp to pay for general City Services.
- Trade deals can be changed once per real world week and persist indefinitely.
- Citizens may utilize the trade deal for 24 hours by visiting the City Stone and selecting “Utilize Trade Deal” from the context menu.
- Open a Trade Deal with an NPC guild
Players: Gold is worthless and meaningless, and the economic us ruined. There's billions of gold out there and you can make millions with minimal work! We need a gold sink!!!!!
Team: Here's a gold sink. A weekly buff, associated with an RP mechanic, that costs 2m gold per week.
Players: This is too much. We can't manage 2m a week per city!
-Galen's player
Team: Here's a gold sink. A weekly buff, associated with an RP mechanic, that costs 2m gold per week.
Players: This is too much. We can't manage 2m a week per city!
-Galen's player
They definitely should clarify.
Either is justifiable to be sure.
But yeah, we kinda need to know....And, like, sometime on Monday when they get back to work.
-Galen's player
The just rushed a publish through on the weekend... they damned well better be in the office today!
Publish 82 isn't live yet, it goes live on Monday. It's only on Origin and Izumo right now...
Last edited:
On smaller shards, it actually is.
It is if you live on a smaller shard and there is no-one to sell your stuff to.
Perhaps so!
But where are all the posts saying this in the threads complaining about how the economy is ruined because there's too much gold out there, gold is too easy to get from monsters, and there's not enough gold sinks!
-Galen's player
Ok so say for instance you build a suit that is dependent on the 5 SSI buff. You claim loyalty to the town that has the 5 SSI buff but the Governor changes that buff weekly. You now have a character that you cannot use for 7 days until you can leave and join a new town.
I see a serious flaw here. If this is going to work and be utilized as a real gold sink people are going to want stability. They are going to want the ability to use that buff and it be there for them. Allowing the Governor the power to change this at all is an issue unless the character also has the ability to leave a town to join another one when the buff is removed. The 7 day delay on a character claiming loyalty to another town should be set to instant. It is going to be unfair for players to have to wait 7 days to use the buff they need. This is a great concept that allows more options and versatility but it needs to work properly and be simplified if its ever going to work as a real gold sink.
I see a serious flaw here. If this is going to work and be utilized as a real gold sink people are going to want stability. They are going to want the ability to use that buff and it be there for them. Allowing the Governor the power to change this at all is an issue unless the character also has the ability to leave a town to join another one when the buff is removed. The 7 day delay on a character claiming loyalty to another town should be set to instant. It is going to be unfair for players to have to wait 7 days to use the buff they need. This is a great concept that allows more options and versatility but it needs to work properly and be simplified if its ever going to work as a real gold sink.
Last edited:
Oh, I and others were quiet and let the larger shards argue about that.
But now the game's biggest-ever gold sink has quite an impact on us.
I thought it'd be 2m/week. But the system is of little interest to me anyway. I typically build suits to have just what I want on them. So I don't find the weekly buffs appealing. If the deal can change every week then I don't want to build a suit around it.
To make the weekly fee more appealing IMO, the trade agreements need more teeth, possibly reworked to offer buffs that don't necessarily fit into suit building, but still very valuable to those that want them . Like full perfection luck and damage bonus to non sam templates using honor or automatically blessing pots, types regs or bandages.
Trade deal fees should be presented as an outstanding balance. During the week the buff is active, anyone can still contribute, but all who have the deal active also automatically forfeit 50% of all corpse gold or insurance won to the stone until the balance is paid. New buffs or renewed buffs can be selected but won't go active until the previous buff is paid for. It would still be more difficult to pay the weekly fee on smaller shards but those who use the buffs to farm or PvP would take some of the stink off.
To make the weekly fee more appealing IMO, the trade agreements need more teeth, possibly reworked to offer buffs that don't necessarily fit into suit building, but still very valuable to those that want them . Like full perfection luck and damage bonus to non sam templates using honor or automatically blessing pots, types regs or bandages.
Trade deal fees should be presented as an outstanding balance. During the week the buff is active, anyone can still contribute, but all who have the deal active also automatically forfeit 50% of all corpse gold or insurance won to the stone until the balance is paid. New buffs or renewed buffs can be selected but won't go active until the previous buff is paid for. It would still be more difficult to pay the weekly fee on smaller shards but those who use the buffs to farm or PvP would take some of the stink off.
Last edited:
After the 2 million is satisfied, citizens should be able to choose which buff they want from a list. In other words, no trade "deal" affecting everyone, just activation of the trade deal list for citizen choice. This way you could build a suit around the buff and choose the one that best fits your playstyle. This would keep everyone in the loop as far a donations go.
As it stands now, I'll be darned if the governor picks the bardic deal and I do not have a bard, then to heck with donating.
As it stands now, I'll be darned if the governor picks the bardic deal and I do not have a bard, then to heck with donating.
You're asking for an effective gold-sink in UO ? I doubt that would happen.
The Trade deals would be an effective gold-sink if the buff is chosen by the citizen (not the governer). this way, people can be a citizen in the city of their choice, instead of picking the one that has the right trade-deal.
Also they should allow Addition/Removal of Mage Armor from items with more than 4 properties or artifacts. 250k per addition/removal there shouldn't be anything that stops you from paying gold.
It's kind of like making it difficult for new/returning players to Activate their own account(s).
Hopefully it all gets fixed someday...
The Trade deals would be an effective gold-sink if the buff is chosen by the citizen (not the governer). this way, people can be a citizen in the city of their choice, instead of picking the one that has the right trade-deal.
Also they should allow Addition/Removal of Mage Armor from items with more than 4 properties or artifacts. 250k per addition/removal there shouldn't be anything that stops you from paying gold.
It's kind of like making it difficult for new/returning players to Activate their own account(s).
Hopefully it all gets fixed someday...
Yes Xavior that would work as well.
Personally I don't want this to be a gold sink at all...that means only the rich will be able to use it. Even having the governors pay for it assumes all the governors should be rich.
Regarding
Alternatively, I would reduce the weekly charge to one million and have the town tax only apply to funds in excess of that sum. But as things stand now, I do not see more than a couple of towns on Siege running a trade deal consistently and I suspect it will be a similar situation on many other shards.
Yes, two million in the grand scheme of things is relatively insignificant and we do need more gold sinks. But the problem is the nature of the system and in particular its effect on smaller shards and smaller towns. A far better solution would to have the governor be able to set the trade deal either for free or for a relatively small sum. Then, when the players come to activate the deal, a charge is levied from their own funds, say at 25k, 50k or 100k per day. So the governor is effectively just negotiating a good deal for a guild's services, which citizens can take advantage of if they so wish. That would actually be just as big a sink as what we have now but would not penalise smaller entities.
Alternatively, I would reduce the weekly charge to one million and have the town tax only apply to funds in excess of that sum. But as things stand now, I do not see more than a couple of towns on Siege running a trade deal consistently and I suspect it will be a similar situation on many other shards.
First off I don't believe this system was used to build a suit around?
Can one seriously expect to be governor forever?
Or how about this should one expect to get their way forever?
Is a guy who claims to have like 40 billion gold complaining about spending 2 mil?
Get Real
Can one seriously expect to be governor forever?
Or how about this should one expect to get their way forever?
Is a guy who claims to have like 40 billion gold complaining about spending 2 mil?
Get Real
Tempted to transfer around dumping millions of gold on all the city stones of all the shards...... except that daily reduction of money based what is currently stored on it. Maybe that's the lame reason for the daily reduction and how it's handled, to keep people from doing just that..... lame.
This is a great solution. Citizens should be able to pick the Trade Deal they want and that will keep them loyal to the city they wish to join. Otherwise we will be picking the same three buffs.
The only requirement to get the buffs should be just citizenship. If it's kept at Respectable then the proceeds from donations for loyalty and banner sales should go to the City Treasury.
This will never be an effective gold sink because it will be ignored and never used. Instead of the elections and governorships being something to bring people together and interact more, it's headed for being a disaster, thanks to poor thinking, bad implimentation and hopeless 'advertising'. The only way it'll take gold out is is people choose to spend a fortune on something some people maybe might benefit from. As a gold sink, and appeal for people to throw cheques in the bin is likely to have about the same impact.
Suppose you want to stand for Governor. You cannot see who your electorate are, have no clue how many or how few, or what they want. You can try through websites and chat channels, but we surely all know by now you only ever reach a fraction of the playerbase that way. Whether opposed or not, you can't argue anything remotely resembling an electoral platform to a majority of the people who MIGHT be eligible to vote.
Come voting time, assuming it's accurate (my confidence about that is frankly low - buggy and poorly tested code abounds in UO, and someone manually re-starting the election stones each few hours for the first days of voting is not too likely to help me trust the accuracy of the system), you'll get some - essentially, people with most guildmates, friends or associates - who can swing a proportionally huge vote very quickly, since zero loyalty is needed to be eligible to vote, and in a social game friendships or similar matter a lot. However that also opens up the old 'let's rig this for a laugh' option for spoiling a system, and we all know people who will try that on just because they can. Setting the voting requirement slightly higher than 'make three clicks on the options for your character to be able to vote' might have helped there....
Who people are voting for regularly boils down to 'do I know this person', 'will they mutually support me', and 'what's in this for me' - and since you need to be a higher loyalty to use the advantages of the voting system than you actually do to vote (who the hell dreamed that one up!) the majority of 'voters' are probably getting .... nothing. Do a friend a favour since they say they want the Governor title.... then watch when they learn it's a potential cost of 2m per week for effectively almost nothing bar the ability to display the "Governor" title for 3 months...
(Might have been possible to sort out 'town meetings' where voting went on, scatter a few through the week at varied times so everyone had chance to attend (and advertise it properly so people KNOW!), somewhere like Blackthorn's castle so some types of disruption are limited, and have the voting follow some sort of discussion from the potential governors - if they can't be there at least a book of their manifesto could be.... Far from perfect, but at least it means some people meet and talk about this, rather than the none who are doing for the huge majority of towns on all shards.)
When elected, what actually can a Governor do - apart from choose to lose 2m per week on a buff that some people might use? Well you can supposedly sit on the council and talk to the EMs - except on a few shards, there's no EM so that's out, and EA have been completely silent about what you can achieve by this talking. Some have mentioned maybe deco for the town, or steering plotlines - but those 'some' are just players like the rest of us, the information should come from EA, but never does. You can give titles to citizens - pity you don't know who your citizens are, then, that might have been fairly relevant. (I don't share the concerns about inappropriate titles some people have raised - if it's offensive it's bannable, and you choose which titles you display anyhow so it's no more open to 'abuse' than the ability to give Guild titles). The titles would be really useful for RP, if only there were big enough RP communities to support a 'town council', but frankly those are damn rare nowaday.
It's just the latest in the apparently neverending stream of good ideas ruined by hopeless planning and design. So frustrating since there was so much potential, but it's looking more and more like a slow motion train wreck. Maybe it will be salvaged by the developers getting a grip on the whole thing, but frankly I reckon it's headed the same way as far too many past big, clever systems - looks shiny, people try it a couple of times, and then it's completely abandoned bar a very few who try make it work for their preferrred playstyles. I wish them well, they should be able to do anything they enjoy in the game - but when a big system with huge potential takes developer time, it needs to be something that a LOT of the playerbase will use, and as it stands this isn't.
Again, it lacked a 'game designer' and got a 'systems designer' instead, and the result of that is never good...
I object to that sentence.
They have neither a game designer nor a system designer. A game designer makes a system fun. Ok it ain't fun. A system designer makes a system solid and would know how it would interact wtih existing systems and spot weaknesses and flaws in the execution. Nope, that didn't happen either.
I'm sticking with 'system designer' to describe someone who puts together systems.... and as a self-contained system this almost works. And after all, UO is constantly given self-contained, unconnected systems, so I hardly expect any change in that. I never said it was a 'good' system design...
I remember when voting time came, a few people who were very wealthy offered big promises of buffing others constantly.
Not many of them were actually elected, instead they voted in their poor friends who really shouldn't have been voted in to begin with.
Now that these people cant afford to actually do anything with their control this automatically becomes MY problem.
Your complaining = LOL
Not many of them were actually elected, instead they voted in their poor friends who really shouldn't have been voted in to begin with.
Now that these people cant afford to actually do anything with their control this automatically becomes MY problem.
Your complaining = LOL
To be fair, the Bardic trade deal is Faster Casting 1 for all citizens, but the name doesn't actually convey that immediately to people
You hit the nail right on the head, let's all get behind this, pay the 2 mil, let each citizen choose his/her Trade Deal. Then this whole system will perhaps make it, otherwise, chalk it up as a total failure. People don't want to move cities and redo their whole loyalty thing for a buff that lasts indefinitely, let alone one week.
We're sending this as a very strong suggestion, nay, more a demand, to Mesanna and is signed by all the governors on our shard. Make it so, please!
Last edited:
*rolls eyes* The publish notes clearly stated that the trade deals would last indefinitely.
This is just another decent concept that will very quickly fall into disuse (particularly on less populated shards) because of the 7 'P's and for those who are not aware of them they stand for 'Proper Preparation and Planning Prevents P*** Poor Performance'
Indefinitely = for an unlimited or unspecified period of time (except when interpreted by EA) when it means one week.
To utilise a trade deal you must have a standing of at least respected in that city or in other words you must have contributed in at least a small way to the city..
To vote in the elections for that city you have to have done nothing at all except declare loyalty at a cost of zero.
So players who have actively supported the city have no more say over who is Governor than others who have done nothing. Don't seem right somehow.
Indefinitely = for an unlimited or unspecified period of time (except when interpreted by EA) when it means one week.
To utilise a trade deal you must have a standing of at least respected in that city or in other words you must have contributed in at least a small way to the city..
To vote in the elections for that city you have to have done nothing at all except declare loyalty at a cost of zero.
So players who have actively supported the city have no more say over who is Governor than others who have done nothing. Don't seem right somehow.
Actually, you do have some, albeit small, say in which city you show loyalty to. Pick a city that has the buff you want or need, and then work up the citizenship and contribute to its upkeep. If a governor picks an unwanted, that city's upkeep cost will become more and more expensive for the Governor, and cost 2Million to change. That is why I have not actively supported any city until the actual workings have been shaken out... now we know it's not all roses we smell.
Next time the issue of the economy comes up, I would urge you to mention the smaller shard issue: It deserves to be part of the discussion. Frankly it hadn't occurred to me at all, because the discussions have almost solely centered around the issue of gold farming, and that can go on regardless of shard size.Oh, I and others were quiet and let the larger shards argue about that.
So again I'd urge you to mention this issue the next time the issue of the game's "ruined" economy comes up.\
If this proves to be intentional, my bet would be that they were influenced by those discussions.
-Galen's player
Nothing prevents any Governor or Governor candidate from calling meetings and see who shows up. Hosting it in Blackthorn's castle doesn't change much in terms of attendance -- save that on the larger shards you might attract people who think they can grief until something changes in the game to their liking.
And what would they discuss?
At the end of the day this is an RP system and those with no interest in RP really should ignore it -- the buff alone can't possibly be worth it, and that's about how it should be.
-Galen's player
For my part 2m actually is a lot -- even though I have more than that it isn't an amount of money I can afford to ignore.
Your idea is pretty intriguing.
Combining it with the proposal for individuated buffs....Maybe have the Governor make the deal, and the buff that's dealt for becomes cheaper, though any buff can be purchased by any player.
Or maybe we first determine if the current 2m per week price is a bug or is intended.
And then take it from there.
-Galen's player
Last edited:
4 weeks in a month 3 months in a term x 2mil a week = a whopping 24 mil it will cost a governor to maintain buffs for their city during their term
In a game where some of the elects have BILLIONS is this really an issue?
If you cant afford 24 mil DONT RUN, and btw we know people donated so it will never even be that, just close to it.
Now back to the billionaires and luna house owners explanation why they cant pay.
In a game where some of the elects have BILLIONS is this really an issue?
If you cant afford 24 mil DONT RUN, and btw we know people donated so it will never even be that, just close to it.
Now back to the billionaires and luna house owners explanation why they cant pay.
The main goal was never to implement a gold sink, it was just an add on feature that was nice since we were doing elections anyway, and that required setting up the City Stones. The purpose of the buffs is to provide a bonus to those who wish to pursue them, if you've got the gold - go for it. If you don't like the particular buff, tell the Governor - they won't change it? Run against them in the next election. This is UO, we give you the toys to play with in the sandbox, and you do with them what you will. The main goal of the system was to provide an enhanced role-play experience for those who wish to participate in it, and also provide a streamlined way for representatives of each city to obtain an open line of communication to the Crown. By limiting the autonomy of the system and allowing the EMs (I realize some shards are currently lacking, Mesanna is actively working on that) to foster communication the possibilities are limitless. The idea is to put the creativity in your hands. If you want something, petition the King for it. In another post somewhere I read about a player asking for a Stables in Vesper - that is exactly the type of request that could be channeled in through Blackthorn's Council.
As far as the City Treasury, step 1 was actually setting it up. The intent is utilize this feature for future content to enhance it's appeal as a gold sink.
We've never done anything like this in UO before, and with continued feedback will make tweaks where necessary. Thanks for your feedback.