Economy

2 minutes ago, Smith said:

 

CK Agreements exist for a reason. 

**decline in faction rpers inbone**

Also for the love of god, please be strict on house ownership. Either set up a hard cap on accounts tied to a UCP or at the very maximum 2 properties per account. People hoarding businesses/houses on LS-RP made it impossible to get a house/apartment in a desired area. 

Also houses/apartments should reflect real life counterparts, poorer neighbourhoods shouldn't have houses costing over a million dollars. 

ye man

16 hours ago, Neaksy said:

...

Thanks for taking the time to write out a detailed response. Most of my replies have been kneejerks and it's nice to see someone taking the time to share a rational opinion. You're a really good guy, I like you a lot.

"First off it makes no difference to the economy whether a person namechanges or keeps the same character, and people who care about their assets would either not namechange at all or transfer their properties to a new character before doing so. I mean yeah sure, deleting a person's assets will drive money out of the economy, but based on that logic do you want to just reset the economy every month to prevent inflation?"

It makes a huge difference. What you said about people not namechanging due to fear of losing assets is, well, actually a good thing. People will spend more time on single characters rather than namechanging every week. If cash is lost when you namechange, we'll see less of troll characters/gag names, scammers who namechange to avoid repercussions, and moneystacking over multiple characters. People like to point to the savings system as the main issue with LSRP's bad economy. It was a huge problem, but it didn't end there. Moneystacking over gov chars, mob chars, casino dealers, etc, meant that you could make a killing on a character with gun warehouse access and then that money would carry over to your 15 year old crack addict. Doesn't make sense? Well, on LSRP that was perfectly fine due to a bad mindset of money being an OOC asset rather than an IC one.

"The whole point of namechanging is to keep your assets and stats, I see nothing wrong with this as not all characters start from scratch. On almost all RP servers when you create your first account you have to start from the bottom, so as to not make the economy unbalanced. Having new players start poor and the older members be richer makes perfect sense to me and is the most fair way. People who have spent days designing their houses with the property system don't want them taken away. This is unnecessary because people will find ways around this system."

Starting poor is one thing, but when players who have been here for years are allowed to keep all the wealth they gathered across all of their characters, it creates a massive imbalance between new and old players and is anything but fair. I'm talking about inflation not only in amounts, but in the amount of rich people on the server. Guns weren't so heavily priced due to the fact there was so much money on the server, it was because there were so many rich players competing with eachother. Who gets lost in rich players outbidding eachother? New players. Who gets demotivated when they see they'll have to play for years and years to be able to catch up? New players. Who truly keeps the game alive?

3 hours ago, Charlie Brown said:

It makes a huge difference. What you said about people not namechanging due to fear of losing assets is, well, actually a good thing. People will spend more time on single characters rather than namechanging every week. If cash is lost when you namechange, we'll see less of troll characters/gag names, scammers who namechange to avoid repercussions, and moneystacking over multiple characters. People like to point to the savings system as the main issue with LSRP's bad economy. It was a huge problem, but it didn't end there. Moneystacking over gov chars, mob chars, casino dealers, etc, meant that you could make a killing on a character with gun warehouse access and then that money would carry over to your 15 year old crack addict. Doesn't make sense? Well, on LSRP that was perfectly fine due to a bad mindset of money being an OOC asset rather than an IC one.

I don't think we should "punish" players for namechanging, as there's nothing inherently wrong with it. I understand your logic behind it, that by making players lose their assets when name changing, there would be more well-thought of characters, but it's a really delicate issue and your suggestion of wiping assets would have bad consequences. I personally can get bored of my characters very quickly, and I know some people who like to name change a lot because they have new ideas. Ultimately, I don't think people spending more time on single characters makes any difference, as character development happens in the background, the average player will never know how far you have gone ICly, and also because all that matters is the roleplay quality of the player.

As I said people would find a way to bypass namechanges by transferring them to another character. This would make removing assets when namechanging useless because the same greedy people you want to target because they are rich will just find ways to get around this system.

By saying that losing assets on namechanging will prevent troll characters, scammers and money stackers, you're punishing everybody just because of a select few, those are very rare instances. Do you believe that people who have troll characters have the mindset of roleplaying seriously to begin with? I heavily doubt that giving incentives for them not to NC will stop them from trolling. Also, gag names and troll characters are easily identifiable. On LS-RP, you cannot namechange when you have scammed somebody in the last six days. As for avoiding repercussions, which are you talking about? Namechanging after being thrown to prison, I don't see any problem with it, after all the prison sentence would last years, so them disappearing in prison is not a bad thing, if anything it rids the city of an IC convicted criminal who otherwise would've been back in the street after the short sentence OOCly, as prison would.

As for the instances that you give next, they are all consequences of the savings system, and by extension the unbalanced economy. On LS-RP, money that you have on you doesn't necessarily mean that it is the money that the character has ICly. Money has inflated so much on LS-RP and is so necessary for certain roleplay scenarios that the economy has become almost OOC as you've correctly pointed out. The most low-end houses in Idlewood still cost millions and can only be obtained by having had a rich character (or being OOCly rich on that character slot), so it's evident that people will want to stack money first if they want to roleplay a 15 year-old crack addict living in a house in Idlewood.

Also you have to consider that people namechange because it was more convenient than creating a new character, on LS-RP you can only have 5 per account, which is very limited, and every time you create a new character you have to apply, whereas namechanging is instant. There are also the OOC level limitations that people want to avoid (robbing, scamming rules etc). If BA-RP namechanges don't cost any money, and the character limit is much higher than people will be more tempted to make a new character for their 15 year-old crack addict than namechange to one from a moneystacker.

3 hours ago, Charlie Brown said:

Starting poor is one thing, but when players who have been here for years are allowed to keep all the wealth they gathered across all of their characters, it creates a massive imbalance between new and old players and is anything but fair. I'm talking about inflation not only in amounts, but in the amount of rich people on the server. Guns weren't so heavily priced due to the fact there was so much money on the server, it was because there were so many rich players competing with eachother. Who gets lost in rich players outbidding eachother? New players. Who gets demotivated when they see they'll have to play for years and years to be able to catch up? New players. Who truly keeps the game alive?

Yes that's a huge problem and for that I hope that this is limited as much as possible by implementing IC ways of reducing wealth from the rich. Tax rich players a lot, make owning even a supercar very expensive to maintain and own. This should incentivize them to invest. Prices of certain businesses should be regulated. Furniture should be very cheap and have realistic prices, 2 million for a warehouse interior is too much of an OOC price, I don't see why it should cost that much. Guns should have a fixed price, as should many things on the server. I'm certain that not having a savings system would suffise for the economy to remain stable for a while; the suggestion I gave in a previous post being ideally, in my view another good solution. From an in-character viewpoint, though, San Francisco is the 4th most expensive city to live in in the United States, so it makes sense that it would be difficult to afford houses in the city. It will be easy for house prices to go up since there are limited houses around the city and as the server grows, more demand will raise the price. New players should have to rely on renting houses when they start off.

What I'm trying to accomplish is a shift in mentality away from a game where you try to accumulate as much wealth as you can, to a game where you focus on characters and roleplay. I was hoping that some people would agree, but it's obvious that too many people are stuck in the mindset of this being like a second life to them rather than separation  between character and player. When you say punish, as if a character losing its money upon its end is punishing the player, that just proves it. We'll see how it goes, but with the same system as LSRP, I think we'll be cursing the economy in about 2 years.

31 minutes ago, Charlie Brown said:

What I'm trying to accomplish is a shift in mentality away from a game where you try to accumulate as much wealth as you can, to a game where you focus on characters and roleplay. I was hoping that some people would agree, but it's obvious that too many people are stuck in the mindset of this being like a second life to them rather than separation  between character and player. When you say punish, as if a character losing its money upon its end is punishing the player, that just proves it. We'll see how it goes, but with the same system as LSRP, I think we'll be cursing the economy in about 2 years.

Until money is useless and is never required to RP certain things then it'll always exist, this is an unrealistic fantasy. Of course, on paper it sounds good, shifting away from the wealth mindset, but how will it work? It takes a lot of time to obtain those assets, properties, furnish them, how can you not expect people not to want to keep what they worked to get? Roleplay is supposed to be a second life to an extent, I agree that people need to distance themselves from their characters but we need the player to prove themselves as well, that's why we have an economy, that's why we have applications for legal factions that require OOC skills and so on.

17 hours ago, Neaksy said:

 

Until money is useless and is never required to RP certain things then it'll always exist, this is an unrealistic fantasy. Of course, on paper it sounds good, shifting away from the wealth mindset, but how will it work? It takes a lot of time to obtain those assets, properties, furnish them, how can you not expect people not to want to keep what they worked to get? Roleplay is supposed to be a second life to an extent, I agree that people need to distance themselves from their characters but we need the player to prove themselves as well, that's why we have an economy, that's why we have applications for legal factions that require OOC skills and so on.

I've explained in detail how it would theoretically work in a previous post, as well as how it would actually be beneficial to the economy. It also takes a lot of time working your way up in a faction and develop a character. But it's also fun, so players don't mind losing their character. As I said also in my previous post, if money doesn't carry over between characters, it would be okay to add in some passive moneymakers, kinda like mechanic checks, because they wouldn't accumulate over the years.

Until money is useless and is never required to RP certain things then it'll always exist, this is an unrealistic fantasy.

It's your fantasy, not mine. I never said money shouldn't exist.

Bro this will make us so different from other everyday rp servers, fully support

On 12/26/2017 at 12:15 PM, Charlie Brown said:

It's your fantasy, not mine. I never said money shouldn't exist.

I'm saying that so long there's money on the server people will care about their costly assets. And not having money (relying on roleplay instead of a scripted economy) is impossible to implement

Would be sick if you could move a gram of weed for actually $10 and not ($100)

If we can pull this off this is actually amazing.

Got my full support

Lovely, just lovely.

This is something I'd back ONE FUCKING HUNDRED PERCENT. Keep it realistic, make people actually have to DO the SIDEJOBS to get money. Maybe allow individuals to collect welfare assuming they don't have a scriptwise job. This could open up so many branches in terms of legal/illegal RP. It's time we get rid of the unrealistic economies and stick to what we feel comfortable with. Make it difficult for people to get loads of cash. This will drive people to make their characters gain wealth IC and not by just having a job they can rake in paychecks for. 

If this gets implemented new players should start woth 50-100 dollars

Post related to houses:

Something we need to take into consideration that has ruined lots of roleplay in other servers is that fact that people who own houses are basically set for the rest of their RP carreer. We'll take famous servers as example where someone buys a house and pays a 25 dollar tax an hour for the huge mansion they own in Richman or in Palemino. Realistically you would still have to work every money to maintain the cost of your average family house and to ensure the bills are still paid. I honestly feel that it would be fair to ensure that people who roleplay legal (and even illegal) need to keep earning money in order to keep their house. While it does not have to feel like a grind to keep the house, a player should have some way of making at least a bit of money every 3/4 hours to ensure their tax is paid. This will avoid roleplayers simply idling at a mall area with their pimped out high end vehicles. This will also boost the roleplay experience for the legal side of the server since people will actually have to roleplay working for a company or owning a company. The roleplayers with high end vehicles would need to take a job as waiter in the local restaurant for an hour to pay for their jumper hill home. The price for refusing to work and spending a lot of money/having expensive property without actually working for it should come at a high price.

I am sure that certain areas in the server will be more popular and therefor demand for the houses will be a lot higher than other areas. Prices in this area will be higher than average and only the more rich people will be able to buy these houses. Therefor taxes in this area for houses should be increased, this again to avoid people sitting around acting like they have all the money in the world. It would only create a realistic enviroment that persons have to work to maintain their expensive lifestyle or their normal lifestyle. Obviously, some people will be rich enough to not work for their taxes and have enough money to ensure their future is secure.. But that's only realistic since there are people like this in real life as well. Higher taxes on high demand areas would create more attraction towards areas where houses are cheaper and would even out the playing field for other areas that are less active. People might rather buy houses somewhere else than in a high tax area, resulting in less demand for the higher tax area and lower sell prices. (hopefully that last part was understandable)

This same system can be applied to vehicles, where higher end vehicles would require more maintenance and would require more roadtaxes to drive around in. This might result in people buying a sultan (Audi/BMW) or Washington/permier rather than a Bullet or Cheetah.

this is nice, yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!