Sleuth Home - Message Boards - Sleuth Talk


0 0
Money Sink Ideas
  <<First Page  |  <Previous Next>  |  Last Page>>  

Jesse Hunter
Jesse Hunter
Bibliophile

Dec-6-2007 17:08

It has been brought up before that without ways to remove cash from circulation any game economy is in long term trouble. Sleuth currently has at least five such money sinks available to all subscribed players:
Travel Costs
Bribes
Detective/Faction Shops
Real Estate
Shady Character

Travel and Bribes function well. Shops incur mostly one time expenses from low to mid experience characters. Real Estate (with the exception of Agency Rent) incurs a one time expense from mid to high experience characters. Shady really seems to be the biggest money sink of the game, and is really the reason for this thread. Having said that...

THIS IS NOT A THREAD ABOUT ALTERING THE SHADY SYSTEM!
(see "Beating a Dead Horse" if that's your thing, there are also other threads for non-money related ideas)

It's just that the money sink function of Shady is a big justification for keeping the current system. If we can come up with some new money sinks, maybe we can make some progress on that other front.

I'm looking for ideas that won't significantly change gameplay or create unbalance in the game. Ideas that appeal to all high experience detectives (not just the ones with FAs) and agencies are best, cause that's where the money is.

Replies

Breitkat
Breitkat
Pinball Amateur

Dec-8-2007 14:59

Also, Jesse, I think a bit of your numbers are off about the number of active sleuths. I believe the majority of active people here are unsubbed, and cannot be in an agency. And there have been upwards of 150 agencies on the roster at various times. Agencies are created and ended every day. There are also many, many people who log on to sleuth intermittenly, but would be considered regular players. It's difficult to determine exactly how many there are based on just one day's calculations.

Jesse Hunter
Jesse Hunter
Bibliophile

Dec-8-2007 15:37

I realize that, but I don't have access to detailed accounts of sleuth activity. I do know that the numbers haven't changed much in the last week that I've been keeping track (one less agency, very small fluctuation in # of active accounts). My main point was that although everyone who plays earns cash to some degree, far from everyone puts significant amounts into the agency system, whether because they can't (unsubbed) or they just don't want to. It would be nice to have some other ways of participating in the economy. Exact details are neither here nor there.

As for paying on a scale, it depends on the formula used. This one seems fair to me.

Cases.....Cash
50..........$22,366
75...........$27,396
150........$38,759
300........$54,854
600........$77,692
1200......$110,200
2400......$156,767
4800......$224,286
9600......$324,370
23360....$536,814

Work 16 cases a day for ~four years and you still only pay half a mil, but it's not so cheap that anyone at any level should make the decision lightly. It is biased a toward extremely new detectives (who has that much at 50 cases?) but as Jojo says, they probably have less desire to switch. It balances out toward the middle (I could swing that much but it wouldn't be easy) and never gets truly outrageous like Shady's prices.

That formula, btw, is
=(SQRT(Cases+100,000))*SQRT(Cases)*10

R Anstett
R Anstett

Dec-8-2007 16:32

One problem with setting a cash value on losing/changing a contact is that we can lose/change our contacts now by retiring.

If I want to change all contacts, I simply pay shady after coming back from retirement and I can acquire all new contacts. So there has to be a premium on the ability to pick and choose which contact you lose.

Rather than total cases I would suggest that the payment to lose One contact would be based on how many cases that contact has done work for you.

One view could be that younger detectives could change easier because there is not the relationship built up, but older detectives who have been working with the Barber forever would pay a steeper price.

The alternative view is that older detectives could lose the contact easier because that person is sick of being used so much.

Not sure which I favor, but I do think that the cost should be substantial, almost if not quite Shady like.

Breitkat
Breitkat
Pinball Amateur

Dec-8-2007 17:48

I'm just a tad confused here. If the goal of getting this whole idea is to have it be something different from the trials of shady, why exactly are we basing the idea on shady?? :-.

If I'm that unhappy with my current contacts, all I have to do is store my clothes and money at an agency or with a friend, false out, and start over. Problem solved. I have a clean slate, and can go contact-hunting anew. Yes, I have to go after a whole bunch of contacts, but it saves me several million dollars in the process. The whole POINT to this, I thought, was to offer a different option. Basing this idea on experience or number of cases solved, whether in total or the number of cases a particular contact has helped you with, is still based on overall EXPERIENCE, not a flat sum. And yes, I admit, I think the sum should be a fairly hefty price. But I don't think $250,000-$500,000 is chump change for anyone, especially when you're talking about just one contact.

R Anstett
R Anstett

Dec-8-2007 18:02

I do maybe a 10th of my cases. I accumulated just over $60,000 over the past month.

Cash reserves can be built up astonishingly easily if I can make that much without even trying. I am sure I could come up with 6 figure payouts if I do the work.

Remember I am the one saying that Shady's prices are a good thing. I think that the point here is it is easy to change all your contacts, you pay a stiff premium to change only the one you want.

Breitkat
Breitkat
Pinball Amateur

Dec-8-2007 19:19

I'm glad you're able to save up money so quickly, Ran. Unfortunately, I don't think most people on Sleuth are as lucky with their earning potential as you are.

Yes, there should be an expensive price to be paid for changing a contact. But is it REALLY as vital to Sleuth's overall welfare as a false accusation? (Ie--Is erasing a false accusation worth as much as changing a contact?) In my opinion, the answer is no. To me, there's a huge difference between the two. And to me, it's not worth spending every cent I'll earn for four months just to change one contact.

Jesse Hunter
Jesse Hunter
Bibliophile

Dec-8-2007 22:07

My earnings are about the same as Ran's, and since I started helping on the treasure hunts I've been doing mostly hard or lower cases.

Anyone who wants to dump all their contacts by falsing out is welcome to continue to do so. I hear there'll come a time when extra skill points are abundant, but personally I can't take that hit now. Also, since I'm careful to always follow the formula of guilt, to ME it's worth much much more to dump a bad contact than to erase a FA.

As for the graded system, the good thing about it is that it allows the same service to be fairly offered to all skill levels. The specific problem with Shady isn't the system, it's that the formula used to calculate prices is whacked. Look at the table above and think back two years or so to when you only had 50 or 100 cases under your belt. $2x,000 might as well have been a million, but you could get there. A flat fee at that level is completely beyond reach. You'll also notice that even the highest fee I gave (based on four years of hard sleuthing) is nowhere near the outrageous prices shady would want for a detective of that level.

Some people may not find it worthwhile, but there's been enough posts about changing or dropping contacts that I'd bet more than a few people would be glad for some other option than total contact annihilation.

roamie
roamie
Well-Connected

Dec-9-2007 05:55

I dont think anyone should be retiring detectives just to change contacts OR to get out of paying Shady. In my opinion , the retirement feature should only be used when someone ACCIDENTALLY gets three FAs and loses their detective.

I know you dont care about statistics and such Ran, but quite a few of us have put in alot of time on this game and are proud of our experience rating. And now we can always go shoe shopping and use all those extra skill points!!

I hope newer players who read these posts dont think of retirement as an easy out option for any reason.

Secret_Squirrel
Secret_Squirrel
Safety Officer

Dec-9-2007 15:50

lol *chuckles* loves the whole 'Ran doesn't care about statistics' comment... did I wake up in an alternate reality?! :s

Now where was I. OK. Yes I like the idea of paying to get new contacts.

Just cap the thing if people insist on a sliding scale.

I do think an increasing cost is a good thing though. It might just be as easy to charge $150,000 for the first contact (not the first time you change 'that' contact) you change, $250,000 for the second and cap it at $400,000 for every subsequent contact.

I find that usually players complain about the one contact they would like to change, rather than x amount of contacts. This makes it cost effective to get rid of that one contact, and then players who need to change again for their Agency - well the Agency should be paying for that if they want you to change it - so it should be relatively cheap for the Agency as well.

As a softener to that idea above it could be city based. So that it becomes a kind of 'reputation' thing. So whilst it might cost you $400,000 to change your third - X contact in New York, it'll only cost you $150,00 to change your first in London.

Anyway I like the original idea and don't mean to cloud the issue.

Secret_Squirrel
Secret_Squirrel
Safety Officer

Dec-9-2007 16:00

PS I DO think retirement is a legitimate option (and have considered Ran's 'dump gear & $'s and then false out' option many times) only because it IS part of the game play and as such can be used however you want to use it, until someone who makes the rules says, no you can't use it that way. I think - and I'm not trying to be inflammatory - many of us have fallen into the trap before of telling players what we think is right or wrong based on what we perceive to be right or wrong, rather than what the game has a capacity to let us do, or not. And that has always well... sucked.

  <<First Page  |  <Previous Next>  |  Last Page>>  

[ You must login to reply ]