Dappers!

[enemy123]

i remember someone mentinoing the idea of having the ability to set bountys on people that PvP you, this i thought was a good idea for dappers and hey it links both dappers and the PvP thing. when your hot your hot

[asaseth]

Aww, Fyrix....

It is cute how you think not everything needs to be sucked away by the PvP maelstrom.

Actualy, it is rather depressing.


Noh
Zorai
Infinity

[kashius]

A good money sink could be if they added a territory control/expansion bit to outposts. It would require money for maintaining/expanding/conquering territory set in varied sized blocks around Atys. Expansion would take a long time/quite a bit of money (Depending on lot size/size of guild treasury). In the case of intersecting territories there would be a mandatory diplomacy period to allow for negotiation/war preparation. This would have a constant drain of money out of the economy. Mixed in with the spikes that would be caused by expansion activities could make for a solid.

Just an idea I've been kicking around (more to it, but why bother).

-Kash-

[vinnyq]

The bounty idea is good, but will only make sense if there's an actual need for money in the end. You want to hunt somebody down to collect that money because you need the money or want the money.

Right now it's just going through the motions. Not to say it still can't be fun tho

[magick1]

To try and change the "I can pay you X dappers" orders I keep getting, I switched to an older type of economics, namely bargain/trading.
That is, you have something you want from me, you then offer something that I want or can use. In this way we both get something useful.
Example:
1) Client wants a q200 heal amp, I need some mats to level staff crafting.
2a) Client can supply mats or items.
2b) Client can't supply mats or items, but know of a harvester or a crafter and works something out whith said homin.
2c) Client can't or won't use anything but dappers.
3) Trade is done.
If 2a or 2b were used, congratulation you just participated in player generated (mission) content!

To my surprise none welcomed that as something positive (except other filthy rich homins ) some where down right hostile, and noone parcitipated in 2a/2b type of exchange.
Maybe I had to high hopes of others to help me for a change, in any case I am back to accepting dappers for services rendered.

One way to provide a dappersink (besides outposts) would be to extent NPC grind mats to a higher level (say, q140). That should at least take care of some of the crafter+diggers out there (me for one ).
Not sure if it is a good thing long or short term. But it will at least offset the lack of harvesters for hire when NPC grind mats stops giveing any exp.

[katriell]

Apartment/guild hall additions (like rooms, decorations, furniture, additional storage, etc) sound great.

[enemy123]

maybe have it so you have the basic race LA, MA and HA but in addition you can buy extra racial designs to add more varity to the way armors look. That could then work with the idea of certain bricks costing dappers.

[keoni]

not if you ignored all the warnings and entered into a zone where ANYONE can attack you for ANYTHING. if those people want to hang out there and do that, then let them. Just don't go there. if you decide to go there, and again IGNORE ALL THE WARNINGS, then its your fault.

I see this inane argument repeated again and again, as if the people who assert it believe that it will rub off on our collective consciousness through sheer, dogged, obnoxious repetition.

That's not going to happen. Yes: when you enter a PvP zone, anyone has the capability to attack you for any reason. *NO* that does not absolve them from the responsibility for deciding to attack you, and you have the right to judge them and hold them accountable for their actions.

[mmatto]

2a) Client can supply mats or items.

I usually ask hunted mats and provide some hints for good animals. No complaining so far.

[grimjim]

Its a foggy night and you decide to stand in the middle of a highway and a car hits you. Its kinda hard to stand up and say "but you hit me with your car!" since the driver will simply say "but you were in the road!". if you don't want to get hit by the car, then get out of the highway because if you're not in the road, you're not gonna get hit by a car.

A foggy night absolves the driver of some responsibility (Though he should be driving more slowly and have his fog lights on), its not a proper metaphore.

The better comparison would be me crossing at a traffic lights when they're red and the driver hitting me, trying to use the fact I was in the road as an excuse.

"He was crossing the road officer! That means he's fair game!"

I don't know about the roads where you are, but mine don't resemble Death Race 2000.