Create a Post
Inventory & In-game Economy Balance
Greetings, I've entered the realm 2 weeks ago and with ~40hrs of active play-time I'd like to share some thoughts about the game. I think cryptofights is built on a fun structure and can become something. But I've noticed some balance issues which I think affecting the in-game economy & player base. I believe these issues can be fixed by implementing new features and making some changes to the current system. Inventory & Repair Feature In the current version items are shared among fighters. Which means all I need as a player is several pieces of items to use on different builds. Rest of what I get I sell on the marketplace. I think this causes imbalance on supply & demand chain. Less items on cycle will slowly destabilze in-game economy. My first suggestion would be adding bind on equip feature to items. Which means when an item is equiped, it's bound to that fighter and fighter's inventory. Inventory will be an addition to stash (which is what we have in the current system). It can be placed on the right side of the current page. So left of page would be our stash and right would be the fighter's inventory. If fighter equips another item, current one drops to the inventory. But this wouldn't simply make it at all. What if I want to sell a bound item on the marketplace or use on another fighter? There comes the repair cut. When placing a bound item on the marketplace, there will be a cut if it's sold. And cut will increase if it's equiped again on another fighter. It can depend on the sale when it's sold on the marketplace. Let's say 75% of sale goes to player's wallet and rest is repair cut. For each bind on another fighter, worth of item would decrease to 65% > 57% > 53% > and 50% for the rest. When an item reaches to 50% worth, it means player likes the item:) Item loses durability and for further use player would have to pay 5% repair cost in-game. Repair cost can depend on the average value of the item on the marketplace. So It'll be same for all players repairing that item. Or player can simply sell the item on the marketplace with 50% cut on sale. This will also require being able to change talent otherwise It wouldn't make sense investing on a fighter. It could be added as a cost of 0.2$, and increases to 0.4$ > 0.8$ > ... for further change with a weekly decay. So after a week cost of reset would decrease. Also a cut can be implemented on to melting bound items aswell. If these are to be added, numbers and implementation might need change but this is the general idea of suggested features. I believe this will help the growth of game and its economy. Also I think it's logical in game's world :) There is a supply, which are items and they receive damage that needs repair to sell as a fresh piece or keep using. So player pays a fair repair cost to the suppliers. That being game masters. How would this effect the game: Firstly I think it would be a fun RPG feature to gear up and build a fighter. From what I seen in RPG games, some players build a character and feel attached to it so they invest on that character. Or another player might want to play and build several characters. And many players like having collectible items. I think these features will bring more value to the fighters as players invest and spend time building them up. Amount of supply (loot) stays same but more items will be on demand as players build their fighters. So it would help preventing a supply inflation. Where there are so many items on the marketplace but not much being sold. If these features are to provide enough income to cover, then it can be used to make the player base happy. By increasing victory rewards from arenas. Against an equal power of fighter, we can assume it's pretty much 50% - 50% so getting a reward closer to that seem more fair. As a player I would even prefer a default cut on sold items, if it's to make me able to get back what I put in if I lose. It will encourge more players to play arenas due to risk/reward ratio and help keeping player base healthy & grow. In return the in-game economy will get healthy. Though I don't think these features alone will balance the in-game economy. Additional Suggestions Before the additional suggestions I wanna share my experience in arena as a fresh player. After understanding how fights work and making the gear I can from dungeons, I wanted to try out Arena I. I lost my first 5 attempts, 4 of them without having a chance due to gear gap, other was pretty close between low gears and I lost close by. That's also what I see from other players too. After this point only way to progress is buying rare items from marketplace. I think some non-paid players give up here because It'll require plenty of grinding. I didn't take the beating and farmed quite a while to spend on a rare piece I found cheap and jumped into Arena I with the rest I made by having an optimized build. I now have 65% win-rate out of 20 and as +57% win needed from Arena I to progress, I can make my way up slowly If I don't get real unlucky. But this is only possible because of fresh players with low gear so It doesn't feel right. And some of them giving up on the process. Suggested features might help balancing entry fee&reward but I think additional changes are required to the current system. Matchmaking: What I seen in the current matchmaking is, equal levels are matched up against each other. It should stay as it is but in addition to this, I think there should be an entry limit to arenas: Arena I: uncommon(highest) & Arena II: rare(highest) & Arena III: no-limit To have it in the current system, changing rare required level to 8 from 6 would make it. I think this change will be helpful because Arena I is an introduction. If It's to be added, an experienced player would already have advantage against newbies by simply being better at game. And a newbie would see there is a chance to turn it, even If lost. If a player makes some winnings out of Arena I and acquire rare pieces; will eventually jump to Arena II with those rare items anyways. For more reward and better loot to use or sell. I think this will help keeping the current players while gaining fresh players. Also It would be a more pleasing progress feeling for players. Arena IV: I think It'll be a nice addition to have Arena IV for the players wanna play it big. It can be added as: Entry fee: ~10$ Reward: ~20$ (less cut than Arena II, Arena III) Loot: no loot Let's say I'm a player that doesn't mind a lost 10$ much. I wouldn't mind not getting a loot either, If it gets me closer to 50% chance. Then perhaps buy epic pieces from the marketplace for the long run by jumping lower arenas. Good geared players who doesn't wanna risk that much, will still play lower arenas to have a chance of looting epic or rare pieces along with win prize. Arena I victory loot: On the player side of economy regarding trades; consumers would be those want to go after big numbers and invest beforehand; or a mid-tier player can grind and make trades a bit but pay to speed up the process. I think given suggestions would make both these parties happy. In addition to these I think game should be accessible to non-paid players through playing & grinding. To have a healthy economic-cycle. Right now they're fully dependant to marketplace values. I'd suggest adding *rare ~1% to Arena I victory reward. Firstly I think It'd be nice to have a better loot on Arena I than dungeon. So players would have an additional aim. In an efficient dungeon farm, a player can make 0.03-0.05 $ out of melt in an hour. Given the current market prices, grinding through dungeons and buying from marketplace would still be relevant as It would need ~100 wins in Arena I to get a rare piece. If a player don't mind few bucks, won't even bother trying to loot and just get rare to play Arena II. In the long run I think majority of rare loot would be coming from Arena II & III and snow mountain. So I don't think adding rare ~1% to Arena I would make much effect in the general market. _________________________ Damn this looks long. Hail to those who made it this far :) These are my suggestions to the issues I've noticed throughout play. I believe they're related to one another to build a healthy economy & gaming experience. If not these, then I still think some other changes will be needed to balance things out.