DC Gold

[Chanilove]

It doesn't matter who is dictating prices, all that matters is that someone does. You can't make a system like that where everybody's idea of value would be taken into consideration. Setting a max is somewhat passable, but a min is a big no-no for me.

So much this. This would effectively limit the little freedom we have in setting our own prices for things. To me, Tinselfails are worth more than Tinsels. The programming would see such an egg as a line-ruining common, but I've traded rares and uncommons for them more times than I can count.

 

EDIT: nb4 "self-interest" claims: The majority of users here have certain dragons they set higher or lower prices on than are the trading thread norm, so I'm not just speaking for myself here. I was simply providing an example.

Edited November 3, 2012 by Chanilove

[HeatherMarie]

By setting a min and max price you are pushing your value system on others.

This entire idea is pushing other people's values and playing styles on others.

 

There *can't* be set gold "values" for different dragons, because, as TJ has said, in-cave there is *no such thing* as rarity. WE are the ones who assign the terms "rare" and "uncommon" and such to different breeds. And all users will assign those terms differently. Some people can catch Golds easily.... so to them, the Gold dragon's "value" would be low. Trying to make the cave assign values would mean reworking how the cave *works*.

 

So we earn more gold if we raise "common" dragons? What if our playstyle doesn't include collecting millions of commons just to get enough gold to buy something we want? You'd be forcing *your* playstyle on us, making us do what *you* want DC to do, just in order to play the game.

 

What's so wrong with how DC works now? We already *have* currency, we have methods of getting the breeds we want. It's called trading. It may not always be instantaneous, but there are *tons* of trading threads out there and any breed that you want, I bet someone out there is willing to trade. Why do we need a whole new system for that?

[Dark-Azkrin666]

Because what exactly would I use the gold for? There's hardly anything rarer than a CB Gold. The only thing I can think of is a Holly or 2G Tinsel, but why would anyone trade those for gold?

 

Especially since... well... Say for some crazy reason I decided to accept this gold system and traded a Silver for some gold in the hopes of buying some common hatchlings instead of just trading for an IOU. I would have to "outbid" whatever the Cave pays for raising commons, because no one's going to trade me a dragon for the same price the Cave would give them to raise it. If they trade with me, no gain. If they keep it, they get the gold and the dragon.

Hmm, okay that's a good point. Then how about making it so you can't trade or sell that dragon you get for gold?

 

Chanil@ I get what your saying but that also has a problem. A problem I wanted to get rid of. Selling something for a annoying price.

[whitebaron]

Now, as dinner is finished:

 

Setting a cap for gold will do one of those two things:

1) It is meaningless, since you'll never reach it, as it is very high, and only the richest players would be able to scrap close to it. => No Change to the current Trade Situation, only rich people could afford expensive/ultrarares.

2) Gold is meaningless, as you can hit the cap any day, since it is quite low. Possibly much to low for rich players to give you any dragon for a measly xx gp.

 

Dictating prices will almost always end in the following: Players will not trade.

1) The bidder believe it is to high, and thus can/will not afford it. (Or feel ripped off like some do on their current IOU trades)

2) The seller believes it is to low, and just keeps it on his scroll or uses the old trading way.

 

As for balancing:

Once more, to have an even balance the system needs to take out gold as well. Just generating currency will lead to inflation, and mix that with fixed dragon prices and a max gp limit, and noone will ever have the need to trade for gold again, see my points above.

 

@Cinna: Money won't change a bit, if it is implemented like they propose here, as more active players automatically get more money while they have the better chances to grab a good CB as well!

 

-- edit @ chani: yeah, I got a weak spot for CB reds. :-)

Edited November 3, 2012 by whitebaron

[Chanilove]

Hmm, okay that's a good point. Then how about making it so you can't trade or sell that dragon you get for gold?

 

Chanil@ I get what your saying but that also has a problem. A problem I wanted to get rid of. Selling something for a annoying price.

An annoying price? Are you talking about the CB Gold? That is what they are worth and thus what they will be sold for whether gold is implemented or not. If the gold price is too low on CB metallics then no one will ever sell them anyway, they will trade them and get what they are worth, obviously.

 

That is not a problem, that is how the game works.

 

EDIT: Welcome back, whitebaron. I hope your dinner was good. We missed you here.

Edited November 3, 2012 by Chanilove

[PointOfOrigin]

Hmm, okay that's a good point. Then how about making it so you can't trade or sell that dragon you get for gold?

So you are going to put even more restrictions on a suggestion already full with them? Not a good idea

Edited November 3, 2012 by PointOfOrigin

[Dark-Azkrin666]

So you are going to put even more restrictions on a idea already full with them? Not a good idea

Yes, or do you just want to take advantage? Chanil did make a good point and I was just trying take make it less abusible.

[Chanilove]

Yes, or do you just want to take advantage? Chanil did make a good point and I was just trying take make it less abusible.

There is no way to make this balanced. The more suggestions you come up with the worse it gets. If you want this suggestion to go through, to be completely honest, your best bet is to stop posting. I'm not trying to be mean, but I don't think we should have to sit here and imagine every loophole this system has before it's put to rest. The majority says no, and with this many problems I'm sure TJ will too.

[Snowytoshi]

So much this. This would effectively limit the little freedom we have in setting our own prices for things. To me, Tinselfails are worth more than Tinsels. The programming would see such an egg as a line-ruining common, but I've traded rares and uncommons for them more times than I can count.

 

EDIT: nb4 "self-interest" claims: The majority of users here have certain dragons they set higher or lower prices on than are the trading thread norm, so I'm not just speaking for myself here. I was simply providing an example.

Agreed. I quite honestly dislike several rares and uncommons, for example: silvers. The only reason why I want them is so that a. I can have a complete set of dragons and b. I hope to breed them (ahh one day...) to trade/gift to the people who don't have any or who love them. Once I breed an egg I'll ask for are some Neotropical hatchlings. Why? Because I value them so much.

 

So what's a recent example? Just today I traded a Halloweem hatchling to someone for a lot of Neos, just this morning I made a deal with someone who breeds their stripes to Neos. Every stripe fail they get will be sent my way and of course I'd be happy to send them green stripes in return. It worked out for both of us

 

 

[beacker1160]

And for the people who have other real life obligations other than feeding dragons, gaining currency through whatever means, etc. DC is a great game to play. The reason why I play DC is because it is a low-maintenance game with little time investment as I can return back to this game after a hiatus and not worry too much about missing anything major. If we had to decorate or feed dragons, imagine the people who have over 2,000 dragons!

 

Edit: Sorry if my point wasn't clear enough. Basically what I'm saying is that in-game currency is most likely slowly accumulated through SOME kind of time-consuming procedure (collecting, trading, scavenging, etc.) and that is not much different from spending time to get the egg you want in the AP/biome. So really, nothing much is changed except DC will be more-pet site-like, which is most likely what the majority of us what DC to NOT be like.

Yes, I agree with PokemonFan13, just, this currency system doesn't work very well...and it would not benefit all the players, and it can restrict people who don't want to use it.

 

I'm really glad and I appreciate this little something TJ said: he would never, EVER allow members to use real-money purchases to give themselves an edge. Do you know what almost every game with something like 'DC gold' turns into? The game admins get greedy and start allowing people to buy currency with real money. If that happens, I am instantly quitting. But that won't. Still I don't like the currency.

 

@ olympe, I don't mean to hate on 'no-skill noobs', but that is a huge possibility and I would hate to see that and those people take advantage of currency abuse this DC gold system. I might be biased against currency-dependent people because I've already quit a dozen games where they used real-money to give themselves huge advantages. Particularly nasty was one time when a high-rolling user who kept buying gold continued to bully me for months on a diff game I played. He even openly agreed with me when I told him he was a 'no-skilled noob' (I was 8 at the time). yes, it was accurate, he had no skill at all, he just kept using real-money bonuses. I ended up quitting, and since then, I've been extremely hostile towards people who rely on currency/etc. bought by real money. No, I don't mean to be rude, though I might have come upon as it, thanks for the feedback, I'll try to restrain myself from now on

 

"not offer 100+ totally stupid, ill-considered reasons why it would be a very bad idea.)" - olympe

 

Well that was rude. You're saying my reasons are ill-considered and totally stupid.

Edited November 4, 2012 by beacker1160

[PointOfOrigin]

Yes, or do you just want to take advantage? Chanil did make a good point and I was just trying take make it less abusible.

As far as I understood Chanilove didn't say anything about abusing the system. She pointed out the impossibility of three way trades, and restricting the retrading of dragons would make that even harder.

Edited November 3, 2012 by PointOfOrigin

[Dark-Azkrin666]

As far as I understood Chanilove didn't say anything about abusing the system. She pointed out the impossibility of three way trades, and restricting the retrading of dragons would make that even harder.

I took it as, trader gets silver and can then sell that silver for more gold.

 

Anyways, for the sake of not leading to a greater argument I'll leave the thread. Nice to know people hate my idea. -.-

 

EDITED DUE TO OWN INCOMPETENCE

Edited November 3, 2012 by Dark-Azkrin666

[Sadako]

Okay, I don't think there should be a currency system at all because currency systems quite simply ruin internet games (I've seen it over and over). But, if there was to be a currency system, it *really* ought to be designed by someone who knows how economies work. I've only taken the basic Econ 101 I needed for my non-economics-related degree and even with that very *very* limited knowledge I can see that the suggested system would spiral itself right off its rails in record time.

[Chanilove]

I took it as, trader gets silver and can then sell that silver for more gold.

 

Anyways, for the sake of leading to a greater argument I'll leave the thread. Nice to know people hate my idea. -.-

No, PointofOrigin was right. I wasn't talking about abuse, I was talking about the original Silver owner getting the short end of the stick. The gold I got from trading the Silver wouldn't be worth as much to me as it was to the person who paid me with it, because I will have to buy commons for more than they're worth by Cave standards. Let's say raising each common gives you 1 gold. I sold my CB Silver for 20 gold. I would have to buy commons at 2 gold each, because otherwise no one would trade with me. If I only offered 1 gold each it wouldn't be a good trade, because they could get that 1 gold just by raising it to adulthood on their own scroll (and they'd get the dragon to boot!)

 

It's just completely unbalanced and would fix nothing. It'd only cause problems.

[Pokemonfan13]

*headdesk*

 

Why do people keep dismissing the need for a currency sink as if it's not a problem????

 

It IS a problem! If you have a way to earn currency you need a way to take it back out of the economy. Even with price controls if there is too much currency in the economy people won't take the currency in exchange, and if nobody will take it there's no point.

 

The BEST way to take the money out of the system is a shop where you buy SOMETHING desirable from the cave. It can't be eggs because that's spontaneous egg creation. The only other way is a sales tax, and I can imagine both causing more problems than solving.

 

 

There is no way to set this up that it wouldn't force people to use it! [unless they have a play style that does not involve trading at all] I'm assuming in my scenario here that the currency is accepted as a valid method of payment, otherwise there is no point in it being added. Basically if it's accepted you'll suddenly have at least a decent percentage of people ONLY trading in currency because it would be easier than finding a person who wants to trade with you or acting the middle man. But that means that even if those people wanted what you have to offer you'd have no way of knowing it because all they'd have in their trade is "Wanted: 500 currency" and what they have would sell before they saw your trade of "Have: what they want Want: what they have". They'd get frustrated and start dealing in currency as well, and so would some other people and suddenly there are even FEWER people dealing in eggs and it spirals until NOBODY deals in eggs [except maybe ONE trading thread for those who HATE currency but it would probably be impossible to set up any simple trades, everything would be 3 or 4 or more people involved to get the egg you want....].

 

 

You need something to make the currency worth something! You can't just assume that people will take the currency as worth something unless you add something you can buy with it to give it value. If not people will be extremely wary of using it and so the people who embrace it wholeheartedly will get burned, at least at first. Even with price fixing people can still not accept currency, and if nobody accepts it because nobody believes they'll be able to use it to get what they want there's NO POINT!

 

 

It WILL fundamentally change DC! No getting around that. It will make it more like sites that it isn't. The beauty of DC is it's simplicity and how low maintenance it is and the lack of external goals. Rather than making it more like magistream, play magistream.

Edited November 3, 2012 by Pokemonfan13

[Fuzzbucket]

An example is an example, I wouldn't be the one running this. I'm just giving an idea of what it could be to be balance. Is that a wrong thing to do in order to have balance?

And who WOULD be setting the values ?

[olympe]

@Chanilove: You might have to offer 2 gold for your common, but you'd get one gold back once it grows up. So, for your 20 gold pieces (which you got for your silver), you will be able to buy 10 common hatchlings at once - 5 more once they grow up - 2 more once they grow up (plus have one gold piece to spare) - buy 1 more once they grow up - take the gold from your latest common and the one you saved from the 5 and buy another common hatchling. Overall, you will end up with 10+5+2+1+1=19 common hatchlings (if your examples isn't flawed somewhere).

 

Why do people keep dismissing the need for a currency sink as if it's not a problem????

Too true. There was a time in my native country (Germany) where the state put out more and more money. Do you want to know what happened?

(Just replace "Gold"Mark with "common egg" and "Reichs"Mark with "gold pieces", and you get the idea.)

 

There is no way to set this up that it wouldn't force people to use it!

True again, proven through real life. Everybody and their grandmother use money where money is available.

 

You need something to make the currency worth something!

True yet again. In real life, currency is (supposedly) backed by gold reserves. And if you don't have anything to make currency worth something, people won't trust the currency and not trade it for any other valuables. Once again, Germany (in 1948) showed that quite impressively. One day, shops were empty because nobody trusted the old currency. The next day, the new money was out, and you could suddenly buy things again - things nobody wanted to part with for the "old" money.

 

It WILL fundamentally change DC!

No kidding.

Edited November 3, 2012 by olympe

[Fuzzbucket]

*headdesk*

 

Why do people keep dismissing the need for a currency sink as if it's not a problem????

 

It IS a problem!  If you have a way to earn currency you need a way to take it back out of the economy.  Even with price controls if there is too much currency in the economy people won't take the currency in exchange, and if nobody will take it there's no point.

 

The BEST way to take the money out of the system is a shop where you buy SOMETHING desirable from the cave.  It can't be eggs because that's spontaneous egg creation.  The only other way is a sales tax, and I can imagine both causing more problems than solving.

 

 

There is no way to set this up that it wouldn't force people to use it!  [unless they have a play style that does not involve trading at all]  I'm assuming in my scenario here that the currency is accepted as a valid method of payment, otherwise there is no point in it being added.  Basically if it's accepted you'll suddenly have at least a decent percentage of people ONLY trading in currency because it would be easier than finding a person who wants to trade with you or acting the middle man.  But that means that even if those people wanted what you have to offer you'd have no way of knowing it because all they'd have in their trade is "Wanted: 500 currency" and what they have would sell before they saw your trade of "Have: what they want Want: what they have".  They'd get frustrated and start dealing in currency as well, and so would some other people and suddenly there are even FEWER people dealing in eggs and it spirals until NOBODY deals in eggs [except maybe ONE trading thread for those who HATE currency but it would probably be impossible to set up any simple trades, everything would be 3 or 4 or more people involved to get the egg you want....].

 

 

You need something to make the currency worth something!  You can't just assume that people will take the currency as worth something unless you add something you can buy with it to give it value.  If not people will be extremely wary of using it and so the people who embrace it wholeheartedly will get burned, at least at first.  Even with price fixing people can still not accept currency, and if nobody accepts it because nobody believes they'll be able to use it to get what they want there's NO POINT!

 

 

It WILL fundamentally change DC!  No getting around that.  It will make it more like sites that it isn't.  The beauty of DC is it's simplicity and how low maintenance it is and the lack of external goals.  Rather than making it more like magistream, play magistream.

I think I love you

 

You GET it.

 

ETA I well recall the day we had afternoon tea in Zimbabwe before they moved to the rand. The hotel billed in (as you might say) ANY CURRENCY but their own. We got - as I recall - about a million Zimbabwean whatever they were in change. We left it as a tip (it was no use anywhere else anyway !).

 

At the time we left the tip, it would have bought a loaf of bread. Our waiter left very fast. He hoped to make it to the market before it - didn't any more. I have no idea if he made it, but I felt awful for not having left him a dollar or two

 

That;s what you are looking at - as olympe has pointed out.

Edited November 3, 2012 by fuzzbucket

[fainewebbe]

This entire idea is pushing other people's values and playing styles on others.~Marie19R

 

Rather than making it more like magistream, play magistream.~Pokemonfan13

 

 

These sum up my thoughts perfectly. I just don't understand this constant need to make drastic fundamental changes to the game. To suggest tweaks is reasonable. To suggest major overhauling of the way the game is set up and has been played for years based on personal preference is not.

 

 

[Ice_SW]

What about a currency system to get outfits for the dragons? We already have Halloween and Christmas outfits. And I wouldn't mind having a game to earn coins to buy my blacks their halloween outfit for a few days.

 

A maximum would be good, just because I can't think of a good reason to stockpile and it might make accounting within the DragCave system easier.

 

DragCave is based on an Egg -> Adult system involving snatching from caves. I don't think we should change that, but we've been adding all sorts of things to the caves graphics-wise. 30 Gold to outfit my Ice with it's Halloween costume for 7 days? Sold!

[angelicdragonpuppy]

Your not throwing it away in a sense. Your giving back to what you stole from.

...it's a game. We're not really stealing anything. If people felt obligated to put things back that they 'stole' from the cave, no one would ever take CB dragons. Saying that the only thing people would have a 100% guarantee of being able to do with their money is 'give it back to the cave' is a fine way for things to work is... just no. If you're going to argue for currency, I really suggest you get on the 'using money for unessential items' boat because that's the only way in heck this idea stands a chance of working.

 

It also sounds like there's talk of cashing rare dragons into the cave for cash? That means all the fewer rares in circulation--the only ones left would be super rare CBs that none of the 'poor' players you're talking about are capable of catching. Bad move.

 

I thought this wouldn't work from the start, but now I find myself actively disliking the idea. :/

[demonicvampiregirl]

What about a currency system to get outfits for the dragons? We already have Halloween and Christmas outfits. And I wouldn't mind having a game to earn coins to buy my blacks their halloween outfit for a few days.

 

A maximum would be good, just because I can't think of a good reason to stockpile and it might make accounting within the DragCave system easier.

 

DragCave is based on an Egg -> Adult system involving snatching from caves. I don't think we should change that, but we've been adding all sorts of things to the caves graphics-wise. 30 Gold to outfit my Ice with it's Halloween costume for 7 days? Sold!

Now THIS seems like an idea for a gold currency. People have wanted to see the outfits all year around and giving us some form of way to see them would be excellent. My only issue with this is it would remove all the specialness from them and what if the spriters make more and new ones during this Christmas?

 

None of us have any clue what they plan to do for this years Christmas. Who knows if any of them are gonna come back. I hope so over all though.

 

I am still very against DC currency but a way to see the alt sprites out of season for a bit would be nice too.

[PointOfOrigin]

That idea would work for a couple of months. After that, most older players would stop throwing their gold at it. Yes, there would always be newer players who would want to see those sprites on their scroll, but their number wouldn't be high enough to make this sustainable.

[demonicvampiregirl]

That idea would work for a couple of months. After that, most older players would stop throwing their gold at it. Yes, there would always be newer players who would want to see those sprites on their scroll, but their number wouldn't be high enough to make this sustainable.

Yeah that is a concern I didn't think about.

[Chanilove]

@Olympe: Oh, duh! I'm amazed I didn't think of that. I suppose my brain cells are limited today.

 

I suppose my reason isn't enough to stop this from being a good idea, but PF13 thankfully covered all the essentials in her post.

 

@Ice_SW: As much as I would love to have a Guardian Angel on my scroll year round, watching over my hatchlings with that extra shiny vigilance, I don't think the idea would garner enough support. I have to agree with PointofOrigin. I don't think people would use it enough for it to be worth all the work.