"These goods are then purchased with game money, completing the transaction. Without the real money, there are no goods and thus no transaction occurs."

But without game money the transaction doesn't occur either. If we all stopped criming and we all started donating, who will buy those credits off us? I understand that certain players do benefit and generate money for *themselves*, but I think you make it sound as if they were "creating" the money, when the money is only "created" through crimes.

I do agree about the implications that Thugs wouldn't just "inherit" that amount of money, though... or maybe they *would*. Many times we RP being the sons of the previous account, so in that sense, it's possible that the previous char stashed everything away in a secret location and the thug found it and used it.

A lot of things can be justified if we set our minds to the task.

I can see how it may have been misleading. I agree that the money itself isn't physically made, but rather generated through actions in the game. However, it is effectively being 'bought' through use of the credit marketplace, which is not beneficial or tying in with the idea that 'real money won't impact upon the game'. It does and it is.

Something I didn't address in my original post, but has been raised subsequently is the affect that credits bought on old accounts have on new accounts. The idea of 'inheretance' has always been resoundingly rejected, with the compromise being a small start off bonus received in game cash. This was again meant to reduce the volume of money within the game and funnel some out with dead accounts. With credits from past accounts carrying over, a Thug effectively inherits millions of dollars.

I think you guys were arguing two different aspects of the same underlying problem. Players are living long enough to generate a tremendous amount of in game cash, which can then be captured by spending real life money and selling the credits.

I would agree in theory with making drug prices different for each player, but that would eliminate a lot of great communication and cooperation within families and among friends. What about drug prices being dropped across the board? That would limit the amount of cash generated, making it harder for people to afford and maintain BG's. Im no cyber economist, so I can't be sure of the long term effects of any change...and I get the feeling like any band-aid type fixes will only hide the underlying issues for so long.

Woot that is nice now I can kill 3 people every 2 days who are MIas!

Wow Champ, really?!? That's what this means?! Thanks for the clarification.

I'm going to step in here Gwarble. To my understanding you believe its a problem that players like me can donate hundreds of dollars and BG up. Why? They are still killable... even at 200+ bodyguards, there are quite a few people that could kill them. So whats the problem? When the account dies they lose all of those bodyguards and again have to start  from scratch.

Additionally, to raise answer the question about taking credits when an account dies is laughable. You said that we strive for realism, thats true. If my father was a Godfather, and made millions a day would it not be forseeable that I would need cash/credits when he passed and I took his spot? Credits is merely a way to make that happen.

Increasing the MIA daily limit is an ingenious move to allow players like us to catch up to Deimne/Crazy_Nine. As even on 'defensive' answers wackback is still there, and it is apparent. I personally enjoy the way the game is played out. I invest countless hours into each of my characters and build them stronger then the last, learning from mistakes. 

That being said, there will always be a select few players like me that don't mind dumping hundreds of dollars into a game we enjoy. It's cheaper in the long run then going to the movies a few times a week, or spending money on other entertainment. MR continues to give me that entertainment over months, and even years on a single account, for an investment at the beginning. 

I can't 'buy' a 1000 kill gun with real life cash, I can't buy an HQ with real money, I can't buy Info skill, I can't buy experience... the ONLY thing I can buy is bodyguards that may, or may not keep me alive during wartime. I personally see no imbalance. Everyone can still die, period. EVERYONE is killable, no matter how much is invested.

As for realism on the 'open market'. I don't know who buys my credits, and individuals don't know that I'm the one selling them. Do you think Al Capone would've turned down a truck load of liquor from an individual he didn't know at a reasonable rate? Fuck no... he'd buy it.

"Additionally, to raise answer the question about taking credits when an account dies is laughable. You said that we strive for realism, thats true. If my father was a Godfather, and made millions a day would it not be forseeable that I would need cash/credits when he passed and I took his spot? Credits is merely a way to make that happen."

Gaius, I think it's clear that cash is intended to be wiped between characters.  That's why our actual cash isn't tied to the account or allowed to remain in possession after death.  Wouldn't this mean that buying credits and selling after death is bypassing the intended structure of the game.  With the current setup I can use the marketplace as an untouchable bank account that transcends death.  Death is the best money sink this game has.  As far as realism goes, maybe it would be more realistic for lower ranks to pay the same rate as higher ranks for a bodyguard.  Or lower ranks to be capped?  I think it's absolutely unrealistic to see OWP (or now insanely well protected) gangsters and thugs. 

To my understanding you believe its a problem that players like me can donate hundreds of dollars and BG up. Why? They are still killable... even at 200+ bodyguards, there are quite a few people that could kill them. So whats the problem?

[...]

Additionally, to raise answer the question about taking credits when an account dies is laughable.

Without really wanting to get into this debate because the current balance issues have been highlighted well enough by other people, I wanted to pick up on a couple of points here. Regarding your first point, whilst things are rosy for the individual that's buying BGs, this affects the overall balance of the game. Much in the same way that extremely lengthy reigns affect the balance. Admittedly through excellent play by a bunch of people, NY has grown into a behemoth of a city. Whether people acknowledge it or not, this has clearly played a part in all the recent changes, from wacking changes, MIAs, to BG status labels, to BG health deterioration. We're in a situation now, it seems, where the balance of the game is in need of constant monitoring and, viewing from the sidelines, frequent tweaking. Credits have played no small part in that. It's good that the owners are clearly making money from it, but the balance struggle is one of the drawbacks and it affects everyone. I'd say it's harder now than it's ever been to make an impact on the game. Fine for those that do have hour upon hour to invest daily, not so good for those that don't.

Regarding your second point, about credits being carried over. It's not laughable. I'd hazard a guess that if it wasn't for the fact people were parting with RL cash to pay for credits then we would still be in a situation where, if you die, everything you had goes with you. However, this is another side effect of the money that runs through the game today. Clearly, before this aspect was as prolific as it is nowadays, the owners themselves didn't think it was a good idea for wealth to be carried over various generations, for want of a better term. That's why, for years, wealth died with you.