In the recent change in NPMs and targets and such, I took to the thinktank to get a possible solution to the dip in credits purchased, the dip in targets produced, and maybe combat the BG issue we've come across in the past. Here's how it works:

Instead of paying $12,000/hp in BG training, users pay .02 credits. For 5 days, that's .1 credits for training. At the going credit rate, that isn't too far off. However, now it would require users to purchase credits to repair their BGs instead of just plain cash, thus circulating more demand for credits.

Also, as BGs are trained, RIAs would be produced when 1 whole credit is spent on BG training. When a credit is spent, or based on the ratio of credits/hour, RIAs would spawn, and would be shot seven days later. The seven-day gap allows any user to find and shoot the RIA, not just the person whose BG training spawned it.

Now, when this is compared to present BG amounts; this is how it would measure up (Sitewide BG Effective Count: 2471):

Every five days, 247.1 (2471 * .1) credits would be spent on BG training. In those five days, 247 RIAs would spawn, and average about 2 RIAs per hour (a reasonable target count). As the BG count increases, the credit purchases (or donations) would increase, and the targets available would increase. That way, the site-wide increase in defense (BG increase) would be met with site-wide increase in attack (target increase), and each one would require credit purchases.

Pros: The users with massive BG counts are still subject to the credit marketplace, targets are directly related to BG count, and more credits are purchased overall, even though the cost itself per hp is about the same.

Cons: Puts those with lots of BGs in danger of not being able to train, if the site suffered a massive drop in BGs, the RIA count would drop, and a "standstill" could occur, where users won't sell credits in order to put those with lots of BGs in danger (but I don't think that will happen).

However, in the event of a massive war, the ratio of RIAs spawned per credit spent could be altered, in a similar fashion of how the BG cap is addressed after each large conflict.

I may not have thought every scenario out well, so if I missed something please respond. I think the core of the idea is good, but the specifics might be a bit off.

(Note: BG Purchases would still be done with cash, and *only* training would be done with credits.)

From my experience, achievements would supply enough credits to support "the little guy" for a few weeks, so I don't think that would be an issue (unless "the little guy" has far too many BGs in the first place, but at that point he wouldn't really be "the little guy").

As for the danger of credit prices; the price could be dropped to .01 per HP (with RIAs spawning every .5 credit so it's the same ratio per BG, just cheaper), and the "credit need" would be cut in half. At only .05 credits every five days, I don't think "the little guy" would have trouble, and credit prices couldn't really go high enough to make it that difficult to pay it off.

Plus, if credit prices were driven up, people may be more inclined to donate, because they'd get quite a bit of cash for it.

Also, I think there are enough people that do donate; you'd be able to get a CD-broker in each city, that can sell CDs to family and city members, even if the marketplace gets out of control. If not, the bigger, stronger cities have to make a deal; otherwise they'll get weaker and weaker over time.

This will certainly hike up the demand for credits, but I don't think that would force the credit cost too high. And if people would donate for $320,000, why wouldn't they donate for $400,000 or more, if the cost went up?

I think this change would also alter the concept of Bodyguards from an essential to a luxury. The BG situation is ridiculous, so I think charging them ridiculous amounts of money compares well.

If the little guys started getting squeezed out of the credit market by this change jacking up credit prices, then that would mean the site is getting a lot more credit purchases (prices rise, people want more of it), which would mean there should be spare to reduce credit prices of features you want the "little guys" to be able to afford.

The bigger problem I would notice with this is that it would tie site finances to bg counts in a way that's not necessarily conducive to enjoyable gameplay. The site would get more money with more bgs and less account turnover, creating an incentive for the owners to run up bg counts. Wars -- commonly thought of as the most enjoyable part of the game -- would represent lost income to the site every time a major bg account died. Perhaps that would be overcome by the "quick, buy credits to get bgs/MIAs again after the war" effects. Perhaps it wouldn't. The risk-adverse administrator wouldn't want to take a chance with it.

I don't mean to suggest that our admins would necessarily act on those incentives. I'm just pointing out that they would exist.

That is an interesting point, Mr. Cain. Though I think when the high-BG accounts go down, there's a drop in money everywhere, meaning a drop in credits trades (or credit prices). I think the fluctuation in credit prices following a war would only make BG training easier, meaning newer accounts after a war would actually get a break on the training cost.

That's 100% speculation, though. So while it may reason out well in my mind, I may be completely off.