Cookies Disclaimer

I agree Our site saves small pieces of text information (cookies) on your device in order to authenticate logins, deliver better content and provide statistical analysis. You can adjust your browser settings to prevent our site from using cookies, but doing so will prevent some aspects of the site from functioning properly.

All posts created by Flari-Merchant

Flari-Merchant
Bob,
Thanks for the reply for the training permissions question. I grasp that more complicated permissions require more code, I understand that code complexity and creation is beyond my personal grasp. I think mostly in terms of modular design of complex systems. It seems like you have inherited a set of systems that is far from easy to adjust or add to.

GW,
Now about Sieges: More accurately, about quality of life inside GW's game world. Basic things that MMO players expect to find in games that they pay subscriptions for. The list of regular, simple features and conveniences that are not there is pretty large. I am not just rage posting about Friend's Lists and easier Chat Features or even ingame mail OR simple PM systems HERE on your game forum site. Nor am I just rage posting about things like even rudimentary LoS mechanics, fall damage, frustrating and terribly unbalanced feud/influence mechanics or the horror(because it is an unfun and boring CHORE <–not great design for a game) of moving Bulk Resources. I am posting(not raging) about improving EVERY player's day to day enjoyment inside your game world.

What I think that we are resisting about "Siege Mechanics" is that the entire "War/Feud" implementation is WONKY already and there are about 1 million things we would rather hear about, upcoming, than unneeded stuff. I am not sure if that is because the base systems laid down in the initial stages were designed for a game that never showed up, that we are not playing that game right or that they were never well planned to scale with population levels. WE THE PLAYERS are, always have been, REALLY frustrated by these things. Whole groups have left the game because of it. Many single players have left because the whole PVP concept is not working. It was, at it's base, conceived and designed with the concepts of: Settlement Support for skills, Allowance of Refusing Services at the Settlement level, Reasonable Checks and Balances on Feuding and Influence and HIGH VALUE to the things that are produced at Holdings. When these things were not followed through on, the entire SYSTEM(all working parts) became an unbalanced mess.

If you need an example of how WONKY things are, take a look at the situation that fits for almost EVERY "Group": We are probably 6-10 active players(this is Alliance total, not even settlement) running around with the companies and influence to make feud and war as if we were several HUNDREDS of individual players. "What the..?"
This sudden determination to put in the Capstone feature of settlement "takeover" looks pretty much like another wonky piece on top of a wonky set of unbalanced systems because nothing underneath it is balanced or works in a sensible fashion.

I am hoping that you have some idea on how to improve day to day play, ingame, for all of your players. There are MANY examples and some of them are good ideas right in this thread. So, if you HAVE TO DO this, "because", then PLEASE follow it up with some things to improve EVERY PLAYER's experience on a day to day basis. Most importantly, communicate with us to give us things to look forward to. Regular play experiences that make me want to come back and log in every time that I can. I want to feel addicted to PfO again…
"I buy Azoth for 5sp/ea. I will trade Enchanting or other rare materials/anything for Azoth. Contact me if interested. GET YOUR COIN EASY!"
uotopia@msn.com
Flari-Merchant
While I am all for activities that players would find enjoyable, I can't help be wonder if this idea is a little rough around the edges. You would need a GM to be present daily or weekly, hand out "special gear" to each participant and record the names and gear handed out, finally retrieve the gear at the end of the bouts- checking off all the names and items. This AFTER special non destructible gear is coded for a single recurring event with no idea how long it would be popular.
If there were enough population and enough wanted it, a special rules dueling arena would be the thing to ask for. Open PVP and no durability loss once you step onto the sands…

Why not push for some open PVP hexes instead and bite the bullet on the wear and tear OR do your dueling on the test server???
"I buy Azoth for 5sp/ea. I will trade Enchanting or other rare materials/anything for Azoth. Contact me if interested. GET YOUR COIN EASY!"
uotopia@msn.com
Flari-Merchant
There are many great ideas throughout this thread. We all seem to have similar goals:
1. Short Range-Increase the fun of the day to day play so that we stay active and keep trudging along.
2. Long range-Get the game to a state that attracts and keeps players.
Not all of us have the same ideas about what will make those two goals real. That is ok as long as we get to the places that we want to get to.

GW, you have two commodities here that you are offering and that you want players to pay for. Really only one but you can't sell it without the second commodity in acceptable shape. The first is xp. That is what we(the players) pay for at the very most basic level. In order for it to sell well or as well as it can, you need your second commodity to be acceptable and attractive. You need a game framework that is very fun, varied, always changing or affected by players, and full of players who are seeking the play experiences that make them willing to buy the xp. It is just simply how it works best. You need to provide a place that is fun to be in and use that xp that we are willing to buy.

We all realize that you are stuck in a very difficult position. Without income or investment, you do not have the manpower to quickly improve the space that you have on offer. The space that we are supposed to use the xp we buy in fun ways that keep us interested, active and attracts new players steadily. Unless you get a large investment injection or a mega influx of subscribers, you are going to have to do things the hard way… Little by little. That is assuming that you are committed and want to have Pathfinder Online be a success. All indications are that you do, just as much as your fans.

In The Long Term: Do you have any kind of coherent alternate plan to improve the play space in the event that investment does not come along? It is unadvisable in the extreme to not have such a plan. Even if it is something that must be accomplished in small steps, we need to see progress. Lisa has communicated that she in not so keen on holding out on working on things while waiting for magical investors.
Lisa Stevens
In the meantime, I have decided that we need to shake things up in the game and introduce settlement warfare! I was loath to add something so fundamental to the game with the possibility of funding coming at any time, but now I feel that I can tread water no longer.
I am probably making more out of this than there is, but I really believe that it is essential to keep this game alive at this point. A plan of small steps that adds small features which improve EVERY player's chances to play in your world and have fun!
For the long term, it is imperative some things be improved(yes incrementally in small moves).
1. How Influence and Feuding works and what it is for.
2. Gathering and Crafting.
3. PVE
4. Reputation system tweeks.

In The Short Term: Here are some small steps that I think you could accomplish, one at a time. The main sections(numbered) are not given in any particular order. Edit: Many or most of these things have been suggested by other players before this. Most are all smallish things and most I think would improve everyday play in some way and could be done one at a time.
1. Influence and Feuding
*Give us a 3rd use for influence
–Allow us to bank influence to be feud proof for no more than 2 days per week.
–Allow us to spend influence chunks to speed crafting on single items or set queues further than the 24hr limit.
*If a company does not have at least one holding of it's own, it can't start feuds.
*Set a reasonable limit on how long a company can "chain-feud" another.
*RAIDING as an alternative to feuding
*Take out some of the MANY Rez shrines. There are too many.
2. Gathering and Crafting
*Proto Gushers. The higher your gather rank, the better the chance to hit one. Now I want to lvl past 14!
*T1 thru T3 Mule TEAMS that are craftable. Two mules that are parallel as far as look and movement but now you can carry 2X the weight. OR just mule recipes that are called Strong Mule.You already have alternates called "armored"
*A new resource(Extremely RARE) from essence nodes… Arcane Filaments(or whatever) that will be needed for enchanting items AND for threading gear.
*New and extremely rare recipes that offer alternative gear stats for same tier alternative materials. Allow swapping Silvered Iron Blanks for Steel blanks in a suit of armor for an appropriate stat swap. Maybe Negative energy resist or something. <–example
*Bulk Resources need to be added as mats to all building recipes. Give Bulk more uses and increase it's value to us.
*Craftable and destructible resurrection shrines that are placed near imminent combat areas. Just a type of holding for simplicity, but always vulnerable to capture and removal.
3. PVE
*Whacky Weekend World Boss Challenge. Weekly random World Boss placement. Takes MANY(more than 6) players to beat. Always placed in some Broken Lands Hex.
*Look into LoS and solid object mechanics. There may be easier solutions nowadays.
*Alternate some high level loots for "treasure Maps" that have to be chased down. Sometimes dangerous places.
4. Reputation System Tweaks And PVP Loot
*No Rep penalties for PVP in any monster hexes.
*Decrease Reputation recovery speed.
*Gear Threading and/or some sort of "escrow"(loot for killing them) that the player deposits allowing for Rep Free PVP Status BUT all parties have to participate to be Rep penalty free to each other.
"I buy Azoth for 5sp/ea. I will trade Enchanting or other rare materials/anything for Azoth. Contact me if interested. GET YOUR COIN EASY!"
uotopia@msn.com
Flari-Merchant
Tyncale
I think they should withold from sweeping changes untill they secure funding again. You can not call this a working game at the moment, in my opinion. In the meantime they could throw the few active players a bone now and then like they did with the Legends escalations. I think they should maximize the chance of this game getting an investor and I do not see how running off even more paying accounts and letting the game look as if the entire world is divided between 3 or 4 tiny groups of players will help this.

It's probably all too little too late anyway, and some sort of reset is likely anyway, but I just do not see the benefits for Paizo and GW, other then humoring 60 active players by giving them the world. I mean, I sure think you guys deserve some credit and stuff to do but not this.
Decent answer. Thank you, Sir.
"I buy Azoth for 5sp/ea. I will trade Enchanting or other rare materials/anything for Azoth. Contact me if interested. GET YOUR COIN EASY!"
uotopia@msn.com
Flari-Merchant
Tyncale
You guys keep talking as if this game has people in it. There will be no defending, no PvP with these dormant account holders and no "last resort Diplomacy" where these people will pick up their bags and join one of the groups that are left "playing".

If this move is meant as a reset, then that's a pretty shitty move. Stopping development more then a year ago, then dangling potential funding for our noses for so long telling us to "hang on for better times"(so people do this) and then they suddenly decide to unleash such an unhinging feature upon an empty game in limbo, waiting for development money. Still lacking so many features.

I am fine with some sort of reset, but I would have expected this from a new development team(with money) that would lay out their new development plan to us. The latter is what most of us were ready for. At least the game would have a future again then.

But this is just emptying out the game even further without any new hope for the future.

Not that I am much in favor of time being put into this feature right now but we should keep in mind that we have not seen a revised edition since we have given these few days of feedback. We have no idea what exactly we will see come of it.
You are probably right that there are very few players that would come back with nothing much having been changed except their settlement under threat of being taken. It would probably be a last straw thing. That is an interesting question though isn't it? On one hand you have people that are still subbed but will not play much until there is positive news of change along with those that are not subbed but would again if things take off. On the other hand you have people that pay and play and are relatively active. Should the "properties" of the dormant or non playing players be protected or invulnerable from the active live account players? Why? How is that in any way reasonable?
"I buy Azoth for 5sp/ea. I will trade Enchanting or other rare materials/anything for Azoth. Contact me if interested. GET YOUR COIN EASY!"
uotopia@msn.com
Flari-Merchant
And again… what is there to lose by trying to stimulate the Demand side of the equation?

Edam
I simply cannot see dropping durability doing anything other than lowering demand.
If you really think that needing gear more often because it breaks sooner will lessen demand for gear, I really can't help you. You are basing your arguments on how you personally think you would react to gear with less than 20 durability, how you assume others would react, and how often your own group goes through gear.

A set of T2 +3 gear takes what? about 3 days to craft? Your tailors are fulltime crafting and can't keep up with the demand? I doubt that. I'll bet that your crafters are tied up crafting T3 gear. Considering that takes almost 10 times the craft time, I don't think it applies to the debate. Certainly not if your crafters are busy making T3 while your group mostly uses T2.

Your assumptions are also wrong about who asks for messing with the economy. We are pretty busy escalation killers. Even so, for most of us(myself not included) it is very rare for anyone to die an average of one time per escalation. If you are burning through T2 gear tso fast that your crafters can't keep up, as I wrote above, be honest. It is because they are queued up crafting T3.

With the craft materials involved and the time involved, I do not think it would be so awful to lay durability out something like T1=5 T2=10 and T3=20. That helps account for the extra time and materials cost. New players can only die 5 times and they need new gear? Oh no! T1+ crafters now have some reason to craft T1 gear! Please do not say that it is too hard for new players to get coin to buy new gear. That is rubbish.

A SERVER viable economy is not a CLOSED economy. One group that stays busy and supplies itself really isn't a great measure of a successful game wide economy. It isn't all about crafting only. No one likes to gather raw materials and sell them because A. It is too time consuming for the pay off and B. They do not need coin for anything anyway.

@ Duffy
You really believe that reducing coin drop overall will put players in danger of not being able to afford training costs? Ahh, c'mon! LOL Seriously? Maybe if you have 10 accounts with active alts and only one character brings home coin. Is that a realistic way to look at how much coin should be dropping? Maybe if your alt characters could craft and sell things, they could pay for their own training?

Of all my points, the need to nerf the amount of coin dropping is the weakest. I will give you that. It's value will always economically adjust itself, given time. Except when there is no reason to spend it.

Do you argumentative types really think that this(what we have now) is how the economic flow was supposed to be? Even though we have a small population, should we not see an intended economic system at work but just on a smaller scale? Is there some better way that you can think of to get things moving than characters needing things more often than they do now?
"I buy Azoth for 5sp/ea. I will trade Enchanting or other rare materials/anything for Azoth. Contact me if interested. GET YOUR COIN EASY!"
uotopia@msn.com
Flari-Merchant
Paddy Fitzpatrick
Bringslite of Staalgard
Edam
I had basically assumed from the start these siege mechanics were aimed at all the currently owned but unoccupied settlements scattered around the map.

The ability for groups to compete over taking dead and undefended settlements that are currently immune from attack (Golgotha is a prime example) is a good thing. If attacking Gologotha brings Xelias back in game to defend it that is a good thing in itself, otherwise if Xelias are no longer interested in it the settlement should be take-able.

Also the ability to challenge a group to defend an unoccupied unused unbuilt settlement that "was taken on spec for future expansion" (multiple groups around the map have done this) or lose it can add some interesting political/PvP options.

What I do NOT see as useful att hsi point in the game is a situation where people are forced to stop everything they are trying to do and build up to instead continually defend an occupied fully constructed home settlement. Making that too easy too early is detrimental.

The response that you are likely to get from that comment is that developed, busy, built up settlements would be the very most difficult to take, by design…
The way things are right now, without new or returning bodies in real numbers, I do not think that any single group could manage to take a defended settlement, but we have not seen the actual numbers and costs yet.

The problem as I keep saying is not just the difficulty, it is the finality of it. Taking a fully built settlement can and should happen but with flattening the entire settlement that takes away any incentive for either side to actually hold or take charge of it. If you do not gain the benefits of taking a built up settlement then why hold one.

To put this more bluntly, the only real purpose of hitting settlements that are built up will be to give another faction the middle finger. It would be a very good griefing method if no buildings survive. It will result in more dead settlements littering the map. The losers won't want to take back a flattened piece of rubble and unless the winners are going to about the investment needed to create yet another new settlement and then defending all that hard work from reconquest, the winners ain't gonna build on it.

If buildings remain though, that crucial back and forth and both sides putting more effort into keeping that nice looking settlement is a far greater motivator. The loser's work is not gone forever and it will give incentive to keep fighting back to retake their lost home. The winners will want to hold it cause it is worth much more than an empty one. Keep that up and you got yourself a positive gameplay loop.

If they keep on with this flattening of everything design, it will kill off the map.
Paddy, you are right. I also feel that there should be something to capture for all the work of winning a siege. They would seem like pointless endeavors, except to be an asshole, otherwise. No reason to want the spot back because it is an empty parking lot. Anywhere would do fine at that point. This is a part of the revealed mechanic that has to go away.
"I buy Azoth for 5sp/ea. I will trade Enchanting or other rare materials/anything for Azoth. Contact me if interested. GET YOUR COIN EASY!"
uotopia@msn.com
Flari-Merchant
Edam
Bringslite of Staalgard
I am for:
1. lessening coin drops drastically
2. lessening durability of gear drastically
3. greater difference where types of resources can be found, perhaps more by region than they are now
4. increasing material rewards for PVP, possibly by threading or some other simple, not yet conceived mechanic

1. Or increasing the coin sink. But in reality no manipulation of coin will "fix" the economy. People simply only gather for their own crafting or because their settlement makes them. The odd exception like Aussie-dwarf aside we seem to have a batch of "would be weekend industrialists" hoping for an instant economy where they can just buy mats off the AH queue something up, log in a few days later and sell it at instant profit. Not going to happen. Keepers has a very active economy but its not based on terminally lazy casual weekend throw stuff at the AH. Keepers have to have to work at it.
- Not against it but seems pointless.

2. How does this help? It is not as if Detroit lowering the quality of their vehicles so they wear out quicker would help sales (even with no OS competition) if the cars are more shit people will buy less of them not more. Dropping durability will also hugely favour the over-cautious "I never take risks" types that hang back and never take aggro in a group and generally prefer to operate in parties of 6 with a 7th person drop pulling. Not a playstyle I want to encourage personally.
- Opposed to this. Will encourages stupidly cautious play and people taking on even less escalations

3. This one I am sitting on the fence about. Though from the point of view of a single settlement like KP I would say this idea probably originates from one of the large "map claiming" alliances as it will definitely encourage new players to join large alliances with extensive gathering claims.
- Probably opposed as favours big groups

4. This one I do 100% totally agree with.
- Agree with this.
Thanks for the feedback Edam. The point of less coin is that coin then has more value. That does not really make any difference though if the people do not need to buy anything with it. They also have to NEED coin to function at full capacity in the game. I am all for coin sinks, but I think that they would work best as trade offs for small advantages at the settlement or large group level than for individuals.

Right away, or after stockpiles are run down a bit, halving the durability of gear would double how much gear needs to be crafted. That is without any increase in PVP or PVE activity at all. Sorry but I do not subscribe to statements or beliefs like "people will just become more cautious. No one will want to take agro." because it is not in human nature to change individual behaviors on mass scale like that. No one can predict what people will do, "en masse", when it comes down to subtle behaviors. Without NEED caused by scarcity there really can't be a realistic economy. If I need iron and it is far from me, maybe I can trade some of my coal for it. However, if there is just as much iron around in small bits to satisfy my meager needs… I have no reason to want to trade some of my coal. Everything I need is close at hand. If gear wears out faster then I can make more gear for a reason…it is WANTED/NEEDED. I can use the profits to get the things my characters or alts need which I can't craft or find on my own. Now I have an economy.

The problem here is that The Sacred Game Loop is broken or at very least is not functioning as it was intended.
"I buy Azoth for 5sp/ea. I will trade Enchanting or other rare materials/anything for Azoth. Contact me if interested. GET YOUR COIN EASY!"
uotopia@msn.com
Flari-Merchant
Duffy Swiftshadow
Bringslite of Staalgard
I am pretty much in step with you on this Duffy. Not sure if your outlook from a few week or month ago has now changed, but if not, there is one big difference. Getting things to be more interesting for everyday play, helping the economy improve(actually exist…smile, whatever else can be done to help with those things… well I agree that it is a tangle of the first order.
Where we differ is it seems that you want(or wanted) to do basically nothing that messes with the status quo. There is no real surety that messing with the status quo will make the needed difference but I am in the camp that shouts "What can it really hurt?" We are all VERY BORED. Most of us are simply waiting for xp build up to buy end game level skills. (<–Which in a game without content or lacking content, player or Dev at fault matters little, is a fatal xp system flaw…smile I am for:
1. lessening coin drops drastically
2. lessening durability of gear drastically
3. greater difference where types of resources can be found, perhaps more by region than they are now
4. increasing material rewards for PVP, possibly by threading or some other simple, not yet conceived mechanic
The reasons for this are self explanatory, I feel anyway. By increasing the likelihood of conflict and enhancing the scarcity of resources(from coin to materials) you might just stimulate some sort of economic interaction. With too much coin, too little gear wear and tear, too much item durability, too easy access to "enough materials for me", and too many idle crafters nothing will budge.
These are all things that GW can make happen fairly easy. Value changes.
It isn't you that has to be convinced of this though, is it? smile

The problem is the status quo is not very good because the options of what to do day to day are not that interesting or varied. Honestly this sieging idea isn't a huge change to the status quo, it's either irrelevant (for w/e reasons never used on players) in which case at best it's used to takeover empty settlements we don't need, or it's another destructive force that will be used like feuding initially was. But while it has a few minor and one major difference at the end, the gameplay loop is the same as what we have today:
1. Grind escalations (assuming recipe codices play a role in siege weapons)
2. Attack someone with what is basically a slightly more complex feud that takes X times longer due to the multiple stages, but still boils down to stand on the spot. Scheduling fatigue warning right there.
3. If siege group wins the buildings are leveled and the new owners need to start grinding escalations again to rebuild.
4. The losing group needs to join someone else and give up on owning a settlement, or they need to go back to step 1 and repeat the cycle.

Nothing new is really added. I'm already bored of doing #1 every day and #2 is pretty boring most of the time. Tweaking the numbers to make any of it more tedious or more demanding is not gonna make me want to play the game more. What we need is a bunch of options with their own risk/rewards that can fit into that number 1 spot. We need a variety of ways to affect each other at different levels of severity. Then with all these hypothetical things drawing people to them the backbone will be strong enough to support players of varied interests and hopefully will bring in enough players that we can have a strong economy and these bigger wrecking ball size mechanics won't be that big a deal.

Edit: Your threading idea I like, that could add some depth and value to PvP without being overly punishing.
Options of what to do day-to-day? How about gathering/refining/crafting for profit? How about buy low, sell high trader paradise? Materials that HAVE TO BE MOVED because they only exist far from where you craft? How about robbing those guys? Guarding against those robbers? How about my gear wears out faster so I have to replace it and how will I do that? I have to find a way to earn coin?
Certainly drastic changes like I propose will not cause immediate results, good or bad. Once all of these stockpiles are depleted though, there will be reasons to do MANY things other than escalation grinding. As long as there is too much of EVERYTHING and it is easy to get, nothing will happen…
"I buy Azoth for 5sp/ea. I will trade Enchanting or other rare materials/anything for Azoth. Contact me if interested. GET YOUR COIN EASY!"
uotopia@msn.com
Flari-Merchant
Duffy Swiftshadow
Bringslite of Staalgard
What are the GOOD things that could come out of these siege mechanics that we have seen so far?

1. Without a system in place to take out a settlement, you can't even begin to figure out if it is too hard or too easy, too expensive or too cheap to wreck a settlement compared to the costs and effort to build one. White board equations and theory are great but nothing is a better test than actual on-the-ground testing and feedback.
2. Bulk Resources finally become more important and have value simply by having a secondary purpose or use(defense points). We desperately need Bulk Resources to have both meaning and value. We need a reason to trade for them and reasons to bring them home from the Holdings.
3. Settlement war mechanics are finally rounded out with the final ultimate mechanic even though, like all others, it will need balancing and polishing.
4. Long standing grudges, ghost town settlements(taken and left empty with no holdings or buildings and a single character in charge) could be redressed, and the threat of mutual destruction could all add up to more interesting politics. They sound like they will be expensive and more than likely require alliances, especially considering that all groups are very short on soldiers at this time.
5. The game is static and stagnant as is. This is a mechanic, that if used occasionally< will help with that.

These are some positive things that I see could come from siege mechanics right now. I can't judge whether they would all pan out as positive things or not, so these are just speculation. Listing these does not mean that I am in favor of or believe that it is a good idea in general right now, or that I would not rather GW work on some other glaring issues, just that there are possibly some positive things that could result…
What if along with these siege mechanics came black/white lists for settlement facilities?
What if it caused some work on Alliance mechanics?
What if it proved needful to work on influence and feuding systems to get it right?
What if it actually sparked creative and more easy solutions to these issues just as siege mechanics suddenly have become "doable" and within GW's range?

I came up with a similar list, but the end result for each possible 'good' thing was that they would be fine 'if this other thing existed', it was a hole list of Siege Warfare would work 'if this'. My conclusion is they need to tackle the 'if this' stuff to make Sieges worth using in the first place or at the very least make it a clean and balanced mechanic. By not tackling any of the 'if this' items they create another mechanic that has a higher risk of causeing more of the community to give up instead of empowering them to enjoy the game.

The post I was originally going to make for this thread talked about specific details like you and others have mentioned, but after reading the thread and talking about it over a few days I concluded the problem is not about balance or details. The problem is lack of positive and varied game-play loops and a lack of options to interact with each other in non-fatalistic ways (all or nothing mechanics). Both of which hinders the existence of a thriving economy. A thriving economy is very very important to a stable sandbox, it helps insure that the community can handle the up and down swings of day to day life in the sandbox. I asked myself why this siege settlement flattening bothered me here but the idea of losing my 1 billion+ isk Station I put up in EVE by myself does not (and I will lose that if anyone bothers to attack, I have a negative chance to defend it). I realized it's because I knew I could replace that station with money acquired through various game-play loops (I can switch between different activities to avoid boredom/burnout) and the economy would be there to make what I needed available regardless of which avenues I pursued to get that money.

PFO does not have the varied activities or economic backbone right now and I believe that is a huge part of why it's in the state it is today.
I am pretty much in step with you on this Duffy. Not sure if your outlook from a few week or month ago has now changed, but if not, there is one big difference. Getting things to be more interesting for everyday play, helping the economy improve(actually exist…smile, whatever else can be done to help with those things… well I agree that it is a tangle of the first order.
Where we differ is it seems that you want(or wanted) to do basically nothing that messes with the status quo. There is no real surety that messing with the status quo will make the needed difference but I am in the camp that shouts "What can it really hurt?" We are all VERY BORED. Most of us are simply waiting for xp build up to buy end game level skills. (<–Which in a game without content or lacking content, player or Dev at fault matters little, is a fatal xp system flaw…smile I am for:
1. lessening coin drops drastically
2. lessening durability of gear drastically
3. greater difference where types of resources can be found, perhaps more by region than they are now
4. increasing material rewards for PVP, possibly by threading or some other simple, not yet conceived mechanic
The reasons for this are self explanatory, I feel anyway. By increasing the likelihood of conflict and enhancing the scarcity of resources(from coin to materials) you might just stimulate some sort of economic interaction. With too much coin, too little gear wear and tear, too much item durability, too easy access to "enough materials for me", and too many idle crafters nothing will budge.
These are all things that GW can make happen fairly easy. Value changes.
It isn't you that has to be convinced of this though, is it? smile

Edited to bold, hoping GW will read this.
"I buy Azoth for 5sp/ea. I will trade Enchanting or other rare materials/anything for Azoth. Contact me if interested. GET YOUR COIN EASY!"
uotopia@msn.com