I don't think it will have an adverse effect on the economy. I only disagreed with Devoted's grand statement. SG doesn't come even close to a major contributor to the economy. It's still the farmers and miners that generate the most money. (because there are always way more people farming and mining than people playing SG. And even when more people play SG, most of the money gained goes to a single person. Most people who play SG don't gain much money, if any at all.) It might have a positive effect on the economy, but nothing that's directly noticeable, if it's even noticeable at all. I'm sure it will increase the people playing SG, though. I'm not sure whether that's good or bad, though. (complaints about kits, trash talking, accusing people of hacking. All that will increase as more people play SG. And a lot of it will happen in global chat.)
I would disagree mainly on the fact that it isn't a major contributor within the economy. And while I make 25k a day playing SG, I know that's not the norm, however I plant my case that SG has long been considered one of the four pillars of the EcoCityCraft community (along with farming, mining, and gambling) and arguably the third in money production (behind farming and mining, gambling removes far more than it makes). Your point is that most of the SG money goes to one player, yet from experience I disagree. Most wins are divided rather evenly among the buffer users that are present, and the kit-frees offer a fair advantage to those who haven't yet contributed to the server (and to those who argue it isn't enough for those without kits, I completely disagree. They discount the fact that most kitters are already professional pvp'ers who are more than capable of defeating most relatively new players. Besides, kits are already too expensive to be given less of an advantage and are constantly vulnerable to being nerfed). My opinion is that it will have a substantial effect on the economy, for the reasons past mentioned in my other comments, and if for anything because the economic boom from December 2014 to February 2015 was a direct result of the doubled-rewards SG. Moreover, I feel more complaints as a result of more populated SG are irrelevant to this discussion; people will always complain when there's money involved in the same they'd be complaining over scams and payment should pumpkin/melon prices be raised or star tool prices be reduced. Also, I notice that many of the people against this suggestion within the comments often do not play SG. Please be sure you're considering the other side of this argument, considering that for many this is considered a hard-fought means of income that is far less profitable even for the best players than the steady and substantial income of farming or mining with star tools.
There's many more players who mine and farm than there are who SG. Sure, SG may have an effect on the economy, but it comes nowhere close to mining and farming which make up perhaps the large majority of money creation. I don't believe that increase SG rewards will result in the "economic boom" you claim it will. Sure it may have a positive effect on the economy, but as there isn't many people who play SG, and nowhere near the amount who just farm and mine, it won't create another "economic boom".
If you admit it will have a positive effect on the economy, what's the downside rather than just "more SG"?
There isn't any downside. I'm just saying that it won't result in an "economic boom" like some players are claiming it will.
United, except that it actually happened last year. It would be one thing if we were just simply making a logically sound argument that raising SG rewards would have a substantial positive effect on the economy (which we are), except that we have actual proof when it happened last time and the economy boomed during the winter months. Again, I'm in total disagreement with you that not many people play SG and that raising it would not create a boom. Coupled with the previous point, it is a fact that about a third or fourth of all players have take part in SG somewhat regularly. I think you grossly underestimate both the size and financial capacity of the SG community, and have downplayed its importance to points already discussed in its irrelevant comparative size with farming and mining, which really have nothing to do with the case at hand as to whether SG should be worth more money. Frankly, there is nothing about the income generated from farming and mining that would say this is a bad thing; and if anything, it supports the case by stating PVP should be given equal financial precedence to farming and mining. There is no reason PVP should generate less money on the grounds that it's a less stable source of money for some. Arguably, PVPers invest just as much in our overall kits as many do in star tools.
Realistically, SG can (and will) cause some of the most toxic attitudes and behaviors and we'll see those in global chat. Personally, I'd prefer we didn't.
That's totally unrealistic, for the same reasons why every suggestion regarding no-kit arenas have been argued. Putting it on a different server really doesn't change anything.
I agree, Nicit. At this point, I would ask many to get off the "change the kits" bandwagon, as the only end that seems to be suggested is to undermine and cheat those who have spent enormous amounts of money on kits, for the appeasement of those who haven't spent the money. This isn't a matter of supposed "fairness', and if anything it's the kitters who would be treated horribly unfairly, as they have spent exorbitantly in USD for their kits. In other words, you'd only be robbing them of their payments. If a change is to ever happen with kits, it should involve reimbursing those who have given so much to the server for their features, yet I would never want this to even be an issue, as it would be disastrous to implement. I say this often, but kits should be left alone: they're not the problem, and its often only voiced by whiny players who are upset with what is unfortunately the pay-for-play style of the EcoCityCraft system.
For me it's more about whether it's worth it to change kits or not for ECC's long term financial sake as well as for the server's popularity. And based on this graph (courtesy of @29dude), we are no longer the lone economy server. Something needs to be done with SG if we are to have more players. At the same time, it is unfair to remove others' kits. I'm simply suggesting for there to be an alternative place without kits. I'd appreciate Jamie's input but I know that I can't tag him.
I agree, I don't like the pay-for-play style at all, and never have. However, a non-kit arena would do almost as much damage financially to players as it would removing kits, as all players except maybe other kitters would join the other arenas. This would devalue the worth of kits by an extreme measure, probably by about -80% if you consider how much money is lost, and yet I would love to see something be done as long as the high staff acts fairly about it to all parties involved. To me, the only answer, if we were to change this situation, is to reimburse players for their kits with coupon codes equaling the amount they've spent. I understand the high staff does not want to do this at all, but it really is the only fair solution for everyone involved.
Economic boom last year? That's the first time I've heard of such. "A third or fourth of all players have take part in SG somewhat regularly" - One or two games every couple days or so doesn't really make an avid SG player. Sure, they may be active players, but they spend substantially much more time farming or mining than in SG. The truth is, I rarely see players in SG, and when I do it's generally one or two arenas filed up with 1-5 players in them max. And you know why that is? SG is pretty much dead. No one wants to play due to kits. Sure, there may be that 1/4 no-kit chance, but 75% of the time, if you don't own bfr and such, you'll just get 2 hitted by a bfr user. That's no fun, and it takes away from the skill aspect in PvP. Instead you have kit users literally grinding at no-kitters. And due to the low amount of players playing, there's not as much money that you can earn from it.
The economic boom was noticeable at this time in winter last year, ask other players if you want more verification. "Somewhat regularly" is by no means an "avid SG player". Even for those that do play every couple days, there is still a decent group (5-10) within SG during the normal time of day given the average server population now. Moreover you seem to believe this is exclusively in SG, when across the board, we have less players farming or mining as well, as there are less people period on the server. This is where I feel you're straying from the original argument as to whether there should be increased rewards, as you begin the entire new topic as to the problem with kits. Partly yes, lack of SG participants is in part due to frustration with kits, but you forget we are a pay-for-play server much by nature. Therefore, this should be somewhat expected, even though I don't approve of it personally. What would your solution be to fixing it fairly? And believe me, somebody who plays for hours daily, it takes great skill to win even with buffer nowadays, so be careful not to stereotype in assuming buffer users ever rely on it. Without it, they are still often the top PVPers of the server, have memorized our ancient maps, and have no difficulty eliminating anyone beneath their skill level. Honestly, as a PVPer, kit-grinding is much more uncommon than you realize, as virtually all the competition that now play have kits at their disposal. However, like I said, we are pay-for-play: if you want to win, sadly you must donate big. Also, you should realize that from the get-go, SG was built for donators, given the presence of kits. It was never meant to be something everyone can play, but rather for those who have paid well to the server. Sadly this is the case, and should it ever be solved, I hope the high staff acts with fairness in reimbursing those who purchased their items.
More money from sg means more incentive to hack. Also I don't want kitters getting richer from reking me.
First of all, "More money from sg means more incentive to hack" is like saying you don't want a city or nation to be prosperous because there's more people to potentially cause crime within it. That is simply not a binding logical argument; moreover, it only works if you assumed that the hacking would go unchecked even for a short period of time. I spend hours on end a day recording every single match for hacked clients which I then keep on a one week record just to have on file; believe me, that's why my nick is "TheSentinelOfSG". I do my best to help make sure it won't go unnoticed even if anyone leaves so much as a reasonable hint of suspicious gameplay. Second, I understand just as much as anybody not wanting to lose, but you sound like you think its unfair that they have kits and you expressed that you don't want them to be successful because of it, am I right? Because while I understand your position, kitters pay enormously for the rights to use those kits, and then have to be exceptional at PVP just to survive against other buffer users. The common misconception is that kitters are nothing more than glorified bullies hogging the money, even though I and many others have spent years playing without kits trying to then earn the money to buy them. Instead of jealousy or attacking them as being unskilled cowards, I would like more people to see kits as the product of hard work and great personal expense by experienced PVPers: not something that pops out of thin air to unfairly allow them to dominate others.
I agree, however the solution isn't always that simple. While the anti-cheat plug-ins definitely need work, you still need to primarily rely on video and hit/movement analysis via video or logs (speaking within the realm of SG) to get anything really accurate.
Of course, however, many hacks can be blocked via a good anti-cheat plugin. There's always a need to record hackers as plugins can't cover exactly everything, but it does help.
