Rental servers

General
62

The problem is a private high world server like that would give too much benefit for a small group as they will not have to fight over resources at all really and there would be no reason for these communities to go back to normal servers in most cases other then to sell the items.

A mmo should be just that and splitting the player base that the game is already short of wont help things.

Private servers in an mmo should never be an option as games like ark / rust is what this works for and not something like this I feel like.

1 Like
63

Of course there would. For one, most people that will bother renting worlds, will rent low tier worlds for building in, to avoid having to deal with hostile atmospheres and high level mobs all the time.

Second, even if a group were to rent a gem-bearing world, they would still get only the same distributions as the public worlds (if they were connected to the public ones), so for example no topaz in diamond worlds. Not all high level plants would spawn in every world, etc.

If they were isolationists that would never leave their world, why would they even need the coin from selling resources? :stuck_out_tongue:

1 Like
64

There will be people who rent worlds as a way to exhume the valuables off of it with out having to worry about contest or finding a site to mine that is not already taken if other players are denied access to the world. and then sell those in the main market hub, which can cause prices to drop. it don’t matter if the rarity is the same as a public world. as the simple act of adding a new world with those gems causes the Total gems in the universe to go up. Which is fine if thats what the devs want to do to give EVERYONE more places to mine, I don’t feel thats fine for thoses valuables to be reversed, a whole world full of them, for a select group of players or player who haves the money to pay for such. that in my book is pay to win. especially if there is no in game way to buy and own a world with out having to pay real money for it.

65

The total gems in the universe is already infinite, since worlds regenerate.
Infinity +1 is still infinity.

3 Likes
66

And yet people are complaining that they can’t mine as well as they like because they keep running in to areas that are already mined out. That is a cause and effect of having other people on the world. it is an aspect of most MMOs where a player can beat someone else to something, and that player either haves to wait, or move on to a different place. either way, it adds a bit more effort.

Where as being able to rent a world and say “no, only I can ever mine here” removes this aspect. if that is what the devs really want to happen, then it should NOT be behind a pay wall.

And no. infinity +1 is not still infinity, it haves something to do with hyperreal numbers that I do not have the intelligence to understand at this time. furthermore the number of gems is technically not infinite the moment you consider the time parameters of the situation, at any given moment there is only a set amount of gems in the world and once they are gone, people have to wait for them to regen. it can have the feeling of being an infinite amount IF the rate of regen is greater then the rate of gems being removed. but if it is the other way around. then it is anything but, at any given moment in time.

67

I suppose the point I was trying to make was unclear on the above statement, so let’s do it properly:

You’re not worried one bit about the market, the market will be either only minimally affected, or not affected at all, by the introduction of private worlds. What you are worried is about some single hypothetical player having more brightly colored Monopoly Money than you, and so you want the devs to go back on their word just out of fear that some single, specific player will outperform another single, specific player (with the second specific player being you).

The market itself will not change one iota, because 500 players mining gems in the public worlds vs. 5 people mining gems on a rental world, the 5 people will not be able to budge the supply of gems even a single percentile point.

With that, I suppose it becomes clear that your mind will not be changed, and neither will mine, and all that’s left is rehashing the same positions over and over, which feels unproductive, so I suppose we’ll just have to agree to disagree and move on.

2 Likes
68

I was a EVE online player. I am a LoL player, i fully understand and accept being out preformed in a game via many many different aspects I have done many hardcore aspects of PvP. This haves nothing to do with me. This haves to do with the introduction of a pay to win concept, and to stimulate conversation about the topic, so the devs have more information if they choose to use it, to make a choice of how they want to go about the matter.

So if you are saying that the only reason I am saying this stuff because I myself am worried about how this will effect me and only me, I feel that is a low blow.

Thank you for taking the time to read what i had to say at any rate thou

69

From what I’ve read here in the past they seem very aware of this and want to stop any economic silliness.

70

Just to wrap up our little back and forth, there are valid concerns that need to be addressed to make sure that there is a balance between the public and the rental worlds. I just don’t believe that gems (or any other such resources) are one of those.

Color of blocks, for example, could be a potential problem, because that could create resources that are only available on rented worlds. Devs would have to make sure that any ‘new’ block colors included in a rented world would also be obtainable on a public world, instead of using so many repeated colors over different worlds.

Anything that already exists in the public worlds (such as gems) however is infinite. Yes, there is competition, at the person-versus-person level, but in terms of the availability of those resources, who mines 'em is irrelevant. If you mine a diamond, or I mine a diamond, the universe / market gets +1 diamond in circulation all the same, and the number in circulation is large enough that a small number of people can’t realistically affect it.

Or to use a different example, If someone else mines a diamond because I was asleep, or at work, I don’t complain that is unfair that they can be online when I’m not. The same applies if someone mines a diamond in a world I have no access to. It’s just a matter of taking a step back and considering what is actually being impacted, and it almost certainly won’t be the economy as a whole. :slight_smile:

Hypothetically, if those rental world gems were to actually affect the market, it would be by making more gems available, and thus lowering the overall price of gems, which makes them cheaper for everyone. So everyone would end up having more coils / diamond hammers, not less. But just in raw numbers, that is extremely unlikely. :stuck_out_tongue:

So to sum it up, I wasn’t trying to say that you personally have a problem with how it will affect you, but that the argument itself only exists on the ‘one-player vs another-player’ level, and disappears when looked at on a global scale (which is how developers would look at it).

2 Likes
71

Is what made me feel that you were trying to say or suggest I was talking on a personal level, if that was not your intent then I misunderstood what you were trying to say by that wording.

At the end of the day. I am still most likely to new to the game to fully understand how such a concept may or may not effect the Econ of the game via the Pay to win route I been talking about. But I feel it might and there is no harm in talking about it. The Devs themselves will obviously be able to make the best use of all the data about it that we don’t have access to and what players are saying about it, and will make the best choice for the game based on everything they want to use. This was a topic I felt like it was better to say something, then just to remain silent. It is possible I do get carried away with explaining something in a redundant way.

72

Yeah, I wasn’t trying to say that you, Trundamere, was taking it on a personal level, I was trying to say that this argument only exists on a personal (in the sense of single person) level of ‘this player was mining 100 diamonds and now he’s mining 150’. To the global economy it makes very little difference.

With (random numbers as example) 500 players mining, say, 100 diamonds each (on average) in a day, in the public worlds, then the total diamonds that go into the economy every day will be 50.000, right?

Now if we move 5 of those players to a private world where they can in the same time mine, say, 150 diamonds each because there’s no competition, but they’re still limited by how much time they can play in any given day, and they still need to stop to get new tools, empty inventory, etc. So the only factor that is eliminated is ‘finding a fresh area to mine’, which makes it a bit faster, but not by a lot. Time to break rocks, actually find the diamond in the middle of all that stone, etc, that all doesn’t change.

We’ll have 495 players mining 50.000 diamonds a day (because other players would mine the ones that the 5 stopped mining) and the 5 players getting 150 diamonds each would get a total of 750 diamonds instead of 500.

So for the players it makes a huge difference (50% more) but for the economy the change is very small (1.5% increase in total diamonds), and that’s not really enough to affect prices all that much, but the perception of the individual blows it out of proportion by a simple matter of psychology, because a person’s first instinct is to think in terms of individuals (player a vs player b) and when they see that 50% increase for those 5 players, they tend to transpose that individual difference to the economy, and think of it as a 50% change in the whole economy, which is just not true.

So yeah, I was trying to make things shorter with the monopoly example (one player has more colored money than another but to the bank there’s no difference) but ended up making it more confusing instead. :stuck_out_tongue:

Edit: I was trying to avoid the numbers, too, because even I got bored reading what I just wrote.

2 Likes
73

Numbers are not always a bad thing. Thank you for your viewpoint and for taking the time to read what i had to say.

1 Like
74

That is not necessarily true. The palette has 255 colors some of which are not available yet like white. My understanding is I can pick white for my rented planet. If I am limited to the repetitive blues and greys then why do it. One reason to do it is to introduce colors that have been ignored in the current worlds but very much desired. One counter balancing factor may be the player designed public planets. Certain backer levels will get to design public planets that will be part of the public universe. Personally I am going to take this opportunity to add colors I want to use and friends want to use. These planets are always part of the public universe they are not controlled by the designers. As long as these are launched first then some of the concerns about rented planets might be lessened.

3 Likes
75

I do think that if 4 players decide to rent a diamond planet and seem to be making a lot of coin. Another group will do the same and another and another. Ultimately the will be their own competition and still have little effect on the economy. If they do flood the market with cheap diamonds, why is this bad? Sure the people that bought when thing were expensive feel bad like in the current universe for anyone that bought an iron tool for over 500 coin (non forged). Supply and demand. I do think the current supply of gems is a problem but that needs to be addressed separately from the rented planets.

76

Same. When it get’s nearer the time, it might even be worth those of us with this backer reward pooling together and trying to organise to keep from adding too many duplicate colors. I know white stone and the blue gleam are both popular.

2 Likes
77

You raise a good point. I know I want white sedimentary if you do to, then maybe we go for another choice on one of the planets to create even more colors in the public universe. More for everyone to choose from.

1 Like
78

flooding the market is always bad in any economics as it reduces prices/crashes the market,eventually will get to the point where the effort isn’t justified to spend hours or days farming up gems and less ppl will do so causing a massive drop in demand vs supply,only have to look at mmo’s that this has happened in to see how it can negatively affect the economy as a whole(gw2 is one example),it’s also the reason most real life businesses try to avoid it at all costs.

79

Im gonna get a private planet(s) and get all the colors everyone wants and be rich!

Private planets = market control! YES!!!

80

I mainly want to know 3 things about these ‘Private/rented Worlds’ Those being:

A. How do you connect to them? Right now you load into the game on the PS4 and instantly go right to your character.

B. Can I go from Normal Boundless, to a Private World using a Portal or something, and Back with the same character, thus bringing items and exp between them? Or would each Private World be like a different server in Minecraft, unconnected, alone, isolated, and totally meaningless to play on and use as they bring no benifit or progress to the normal Boundless game?

And finally C. Would a PS4 player be able to buy/own/rent a Private World, or would it be PC only, having to be hosted on a PC computer/server and needing PC commands and admin/mod logins that a PS4 can’t do?