www.Tobold.com
Tobold@GMail.com
A blog with my thoughts regarding games I am playing and other stuff in life. Please read my Terms of Service
RSS Feed
Thursday, July 10, 2008
The Shandalar Project - Trading
Of course in our fictionary MMORPG we could use a bog standard auction house system to trade cards. But then a lot of bad things would happen, things you can observe in Magic the Gathering Online, and in World of Warcraft: People would trade not to get the cards they need or get rid off the cards they have in surplus, but they would trade for profit. In MtGO it quickly became impossible to trade one card for another card of the same value. People only traded for "tickets", the MtGO currency, and trading was ruined by people buying everything cheap and selling it on at a profit. And in MMORPGs like World of Warcraft we are all aware of gold farmers, leading to negative secondary effects like botting and keylogging.
All this is caused by greed, and trading with greed in mind is made possible by asymmetric trading: Nothing has a fixed value, and so people can overpay, underpay, or even "trade" you 1,000 gold for nothing in the game (while receiving $50 outside the game in exchange). All the games using standard trading and auction house systems suffer from this, so we need a radical solution to make Shandalar free of RMT and profiteers: We will restrict all trades to only allow symmetrical trades.
This is possible because right now we only have two things in the game: points of various colors, and cards of various color and rarity. And we have NPCs who sell those cards for points, so we KNOW how many points every card is worth. Thus we can restrict all trades to symmetric trades, where both sides put up cards of exactly equal value. We don't want people to be able to trade points, or trade cards for points, because then questing becomes pointless. We just allow trading cards for cards of equal value.
Thus our "auction house" looks very different from a classic MMORPG auction house. You can have both buy and sell orders. In a sell order you put up a card you'd be willing to trade away, and list one card, or several possibilities, of equal value you'd want for your card. A buy order is just the reverse, you say what card you want, and list several possibilities of cards of equal value you'd be willing to trade in. We might want to add an auction house fee in points, but points don't change hands between players.
As you can't trade something for nothing, or even something for something that is worth much more, it will be extremely hard to game the system to trade cards for real money. After all, we want to have the monopoly in selling cards for real money, in the form of booster packs. And because there are no profiteers gaming the system, players can trade their cards in fair trades with other players, without anyone feeling cheated.
- posted by Tobold @ 7:00 AM Permanent Link
Comments:
All this is caused by greed, and trading with greed in mind is made possible by asymmetric trading:
I think the underlying cause has always been insecure people who are so desperate for some meager grain of "success" in their life that they are willing to spend any amount of money to gain an edge.
<< Home
Newer› ‹Older
How do you define equal value though? If you have two cards of the same rarity, one is usually better than the other. You can't guarantee that all cards of equal rarity will be equally useful, especially when you get into the more complex cards. Some cards will be more useful than others.
Trading one for one by rarity, means that some people will trade a Mox for a Shivan Dragon, which is just as much a rip-off as someone selling an item for profit. In many ways it's worse. I remember going to tournaments and watching adults try and con kids out of the most expensive tournament cards by offering them large shiny monsters.
If both sides had access to a price guide, then a fair trade in cards could be set up. Then comes the question of how to price cards. In the real price of a card is what someone is willing to pay for it.
Trading one for one by rarity, means that some people will trade a Mox for a Shivan Dragon, which is just as much a rip-off as someone selling an item for profit. In many ways it's worse. I remember going to tournaments and watching adults try and con kids out of the most expensive tournament cards by offering them large shiny monsters.
If both sides had access to a price guide, then a fair trade in cards could be set up. Then comes the question of how to price cards. In the real price of a card is what someone is willing to pay for it.
I'm not sure that this system will get rid of RMT completely.
Your system assigns all cards a fixed value ahead of time, but some players will inevitably assign different values to some cards. Say I have a rare card, and you have a rare card, but even though the game says that they have the same value, we both think that your card is worth $10 more than mine. Normally, you'd never be willing to trade cards with me, but I could pay you $10 outside the game in order to make it worth your while.
In the extreme case, card farmers would put in a lot of time and effort to collect the best cards in the game, and then they'd sell those cards for cash money by trading them in game for weaker cards that the game considers to be equivalent.
Obviously, this system makes it more difficult to move money around in game, and maybe that's enough to discourage farmers. But it also gets in the way of interesting and legitimate trades that players want to execute. In my example above, your card is worth more than mine, so it's unlikely I could convince you to trade cards with me in the absence of some payment outside the game, but maybe if the game allowed more flexible trades, I could throw in another card that would balance out the trade. In other words, restricting trades is as much of a burden on players wanting to make legitimate trades as is it on farmers wanting to do RMT.
Personally, I actually like the way the economy works in games like WoW. RMT is definitely an issue, but I find it fascinating that you can actually observe supply and demand in action at the auction house, and I think that the entertainment value of playing the market and earning virtual cash is well worth the annoyance of RMT.
Your system assigns all cards a fixed value ahead of time, but some players will inevitably assign different values to some cards. Say I have a rare card, and you have a rare card, but even though the game says that they have the same value, we both think that your card is worth $10 more than mine. Normally, you'd never be willing to trade cards with me, but I could pay you $10 outside the game in order to make it worth your while.
In the extreme case, card farmers would put in a lot of time and effort to collect the best cards in the game, and then they'd sell those cards for cash money by trading them in game for weaker cards that the game considers to be equivalent.
Obviously, this system makes it more difficult to move money around in game, and maybe that's enough to discourage farmers. But it also gets in the way of interesting and legitimate trades that players want to execute. In my example above, your card is worth more than mine, so it's unlikely I could convince you to trade cards with me in the absence of some payment outside the game, but maybe if the game allowed more flexible trades, I could throw in another card that would balance out the trade. In other words, restricting trades is as much of a burden on players wanting to make legitimate trades as is it on farmers wanting to do RMT.
Personally, I actually like the way the economy works in games like WoW. RMT is definitely an issue, but I find it fascinating that you can actually observe supply and demand in action at the auction house, and I think that the entertainment value of playing the market and earning virtual cash is well worth the annoyance of RMT.
# posted by 
: 10/7/08 08:30
: 10/7/08 08:30
Ideally all rare cards would be equally good. This is a problem which is well known to MMORPGs as class balance, but the original MtG did it horribly wrong. Failing that, we still can assign different point values to different rares, nowhere does it say that all rares must cost the same amount of points.
If cards were worth different amount of points, we'd have to add the possibility to trade one card against several cards plus points to even out the point value of both sides of the trade.
If cards were worth different amount of points, we'd have to add the possibility to trade one card against several cards plus points to even out the point value of both sides of the trade.
I think the problem is that trading is only interesting if different players assign different values to the same cards. If all cards of a given rarity really are equally valuable or desirable, then why bother trading at all?
Trades happen when both parties gain something of value as a result of the trade, and any time you're moving value from one party to another, there's an opportunity for exchanging cash behind the scenes.
Trades happen when both parties gain something of value as a result of the trade, and any time you're moving value from one party to another, there's an opportunity for exchanging cash behind the scenes.
# posted by : 10/7/08 08:45
: 10/7/08 08:45
Here's why this is not just wrong, but wrong-headed: *Every* trade is "asymmetric". It's the nature of trading that the thing you're trading for is of more value to you than the thing you are trading away, or you wouldn't have any incentive to trade in the first place.
Asymmetry in trades is not a bug, or an exploit, it's a feature. A centrally planned economy that tried to place an absolute value framework on trades would either be circumvented, or there just wouldn't be any trade.
Asymmetry in trades is not a bug, or an exploit, it's a feature. A centrally planned economy that tried to place an absolute value framework on trades would either be circumvented, or there just wouldn't be any trade.
what about the mailbox? Will there be one? And will the same system of same value cards apply?
I think the idea of only trading cards is an interesting one and I think it could work quite well, as long as the equality of cards system is correct.
But what is to stop people from staying in one easy spot farming a particular card, then trading it out for all the other cards, in that way allowing people to effectively gain a variety of cards without going anywhere.
I think the idea of only trading cards is an interesting one and I think it could work quite well, as long as the equality of cards system is correct.
But what is to stop people from staying in one easy spot farming a particular card, then trading it out for all the other cards, in that way allowing people to effectively gain a variety of cards without going anywhere.
I'd like to see a system wich allows assymetric trading, and wich also keeps track of the average value of each and every card in the game and presents that info to the players. Mind you, not necessary a formal average, could be some sort of weighted median, a cut-edges-medium or similar. Compare to the Auctioneer addon for WoW, the built-in trading tools from EVE-online or any system for keeping track of RL-stock-exchange. This would help to keep people from doing "stupid" trades, and it would let the community set the trading value for the different cards.
It also has the bonus of being able to show the total average value of a players deck as a sort of "level" when inspecting their avatar. This would make it easier for you as a player to know who to keep away from, and who to challenge. It could also be used as a way to indicate a monsters relative toguhness based on the value of their deck, and the cards they can drop.
This system does indeed enable RMT, but I think it is well worth it because it creates a very dynamic and open trading atmosphere where information travels freely. Sort of the ideal neo-liberal economic environment :-)
It also has the bonus of being able to show the total average value of a players deck as a sort of "level" when inspecting their avatar. This would make it easier for you as a player to know who to keep away from, and who to challenge. It could also be used as a way to indicate a monsters relative toguhness based on the value of their deck, and the cards they can drop.
This system does indeed enable RMT, but I think it is well worth it because it creates a very dynamic and open trading atmosphere where information travels freely. Sort of the ideal neo-liberal economic environment :-)
The benefit of a dynamic MMORPG is that each server economy can be different, and very much like the 3rd party trading in M:TG itself.
On a server creation cards are valued by their Points, that is a generic blank world (yes this can be abused a little), as Cards become more popular and used, they are ranked (yes this does lead to some jank cards, and early inflation of them, however this inflation could be restricted in the early game). Ranked cards have a modified points, so if the typical "Illidan Killer Deck" for your mage equivalent is:
4x Fireball
4x Pyroblast
4x Arcane Bolts
... some filler
4x Uber combo card
Then these cards gain in value, those deemed to be common or class defining (deck defining?) are immune or reduced inflation meaning a Johnny or Timmy deck will likely be worth a lot less than a Spike Deck, Spike needs to trade a lot to other people (or quest harder) to acquire the cards he needs because they are powerful. This doesn't really work in WoW due to the RNG basis and specific loot from bosses, however does work on a fixed card set, we can define staples of the deck and indeed we can alter them as time goes on, suddenly a war breaks out in "insanely good farming area of imbaness", resulting in the drop rate of those cards halving, suddenly people must farm more for it, the value of the card could increase (those with it keep killing bosses and making progress), or decrease (people stop using it because its hard to get hold of / expensive).
Autobalancing the game is something you see in M;TG, except its cash based, rares might be worth $1, but chase rares are $5, $15, >$20, and that can be modelled in game as part of the system, each server has a different economy, and using a non-standard deck is rewarded (points from bosses could be rewarded based on Sum(PlayerDecks) / Expected difficulty, so a group that achieves kills with unusual decks is rewarded.
On a server creation cards are valued by their Points, that is a generic blank world (yes this can be abused a little), as Cards become more popular and used, they are ranked (yes this does lead to some jank cards, and early inflation of them, however this inflation could be restricted in the early game). Ranked cards have a modified points, so if the typical "Illidan Killer Deck" for your mage equivalent is:
4x Fireball
4x Pyroblast
4x Arcane Bolts
... some filler
4x Uber combo card
Then these cards gain in value, those deemed to be common or class defining (deck defining?) are immune or reduced inflation meaning a Johnny or Timmy deck will likely be worth a lot less than a Spike Deck, Spike needs to trade a lot to other people (or quest harder) to acquire the cards he needs because they are powerful. This doesn't really work in WoW due to the RNG basis and specific loot from bosses, however does work on a fixed card set, we can define staples of the deck and indeed we can alter them as time goes on, suddenly a war breaks out in "insanely good farming area of imbaness", resulting in the drop rate of those cards halving, suddenly people must farm more for it, the value of the card could increase (those with it keep killing bosses and making progress), or decrease (people stop using it because its hard to get hold of / expensive).
Autobalancing the game is something you see in M;TG, except its cash based, rares might be worth $1, but chase rares are $5, $15, >$20, and that can be modelled in game as part of the system, each server has a different economy, and using a non-standard deck is rewarded (points from bosses could be rewarded based on Sum(PlayerDecks) / Expected difficulty, so a group that achieves kills with unusual decks is rewarded.
In Magic the Gathering different rares are worth different amount of money because the supply of each rare is the same: they are printed on sheets, so there are exactly the same number of each rare of any given edition out there. If there is more demand for one of them, then it gets more valuable than the other.
In Shandalar cards aren't necessarily existing in equal amounts. If everyone wants the same card, they can all form groups and go questing for that card. So supply catches up with demand, and the trade value shouldn't shoot up to high as if supply was limited.
Even if all cards are worth the same, people trade because they have different preferences. If you want to "play a healer", you need lots of white cards. And maybe your red cards aren't of so much use to you. Trading your red card for a white card of equal value is a win-win situation for both you and the other player, who has a red deck and doesn't want white cards in it.
In Shandalar cards aren't necessarily existing in equal amounts. If everyone wants the same card, they can all form groups and go questing for that card. So supply catches up with demand, and the trade value shouldn't shoot up to high as if supply was limited.
Even if all cards are worth the same, people trade because they have different preferences. If you want to "play a healer", you need lots of white cards. And maybe your red cards aren't of so much use to you. Trading your red card for a white card of equal value is a win-win situation for both you and the other player, who has a red deck and doesn't want white cards in it.
THis sounds nice - in theory, but imho it would totally ruin the fun for me and make it a no-go for any MMO.
I always play with a group/guild of friends and helping each other is a big factor for us. Loot is always offered inside the guild for free and it's not uncommon to help lowbies leveling or giving some money to a new player, so he can buy his mount/whatever.
This system focuses on the bad aspects of the MMO economies, but also ruins the good sides - helping each other for no or small rewards.
Lets say I got a setup using black and red cards and get a really nice, awesome rare white card. I can't or don't want to use it myself, but my friend is just starting with his white deck and it would fit perfectly.
Now, what is he supposed to do? How can I give that card to him if he has no rare card he can trade for it? If I have problems helping my friends/guilds because of such a system, it's a failure for me, I would rather see (and ignore) all the gold seller spam, than being unable to trade to friends.
Also, what about guilds and maybe guilds bank in general? How would they fit into this game?
But very interesting topic so far, and especially the combat is a great idea so far :)
I always play with a group/guild of friends and helping each other is a big factor for us. Loot is always offered inside the guild for free and it's not uncommon to help lowbies leveling or giving some money to a new player, so he can buy his mount/whatever.
This system focuses on the bad aspects of the MMO economies, but also ruins the good sides - helping each other for no or small rewards.
Lets say I got a setup using black and red cards and get a really nice, awesome rare white card. I can't or don't want to use it myself, but my friend is just starting with his white deck and it would fit perfectly.
Now, what is he supposed to do? How can I give that card to him if he has no rare card he can trade for it? If I have problems helping my friends/guilds because of such a system, it's a failure for me, I would rather see (and ignore) all the gold seller spam, than being unable to trade to friends.
Also, what about guilds and maybe guilds bank in general? How would they fit into this game?
But very interesting topic so far, and especially the combat is a great idea so far :)
All this is caused by greed, and trading with greed in mind is made possible by asymmetric trading:
I think the underlying cause has always been insecure people who are so desperate for some meager grain of "success" in their life that they are willing to spend any amount of money to gain an edge.
# posted by : 10/7/08 10:53
: 10/7/08 10:53
@anonymous
A person trades away something in order to get something that they percieve as more valuable.
The "insecure people" of your example trade away some money for some feeling of success. They feel like they do a good trade. And if I can trade them some feeling of success in exchange for some money that I feel is more valuable for me, then I can make a good trade as well, and everyone is happy.
The idea of trading is that the same thing can have different values for different people.
A person trades away something in order to get something that they percieve as more valuable.
The "insecure people" of your example trade away some money for some feeling of success. They feel like they do a good trade. And if I can trade them some feeling of success in exchange for some money that I feel is more valuable for me, then I can make a good trade as well, and everyone is happy.
The idea of trading is that the same thing can have different values for different people.
Tobold,
Just saw an article on a company called Challenge Games getting 4.5M in funding. They have a game called Duels (http://www.challengegames.com/game_details.php?id=1) which at first blush looks to have a lot of elements like you are discussing. I have dove into it to deep, but thought I'd share the link with you.
I've also played around with urban-rivals, The Continuum, and Pox Nora lately, all of which combine collectible "card" elements with onling dueling.
Just saw an article on a company called Challenge Games getting 4.5M in funding. They have a game called Duels (http://www.challengegames.com/game_details.php?id=1) which at first blush looks to have a lot of elements like you are discussing. I have dove into it to deep, but thought I'd share the link with you.
I've also played around with urban-rivals, The Continuum, and Pox Nora lately, all of which combine collectible "card" elements with onling dueling.
# posted by : 10/7/08 14:52
: 10/7/08 14:52
I had a really long screed detailing how wrong you are about the economics of MMOS, about how you conflate in-game economies and out-game economies and then further lump them all together as 'bad'.
But then, I realized that you wouldn't have internalized any of those lessons I spent time crafting for your erudition and came up with a better solution.
Go play EVE Online, as a Trader for six months. No Ship-to-Ship PvP, no PvE at all. Just you and your cargo hauler. Then come back and explain to us your thoughts on 'greed' and the economy.
The economies of MMOs are another PvP arena and you seriously, seriously need to rethink what you put up here today.
Calling it drivel is being generous.
But then, I realized that you wouldn't have internalized any of those lessons I spent time crafting for your erudition and came up with a better solution.
Go play EVE Online, as a Trader for six months. No Ship-to-Ship PvP, no PvE at all. Just you and your cargo hauler. Then come back and explain to us your thoughts on 'greed' and the economy.
The economies of MMOs are another PvP arena and you seriously, seriously need to rethink what you put up here today.
Calling it drivel is being generous.
How's this for a radical idea? No auction house, only a "Card Commodity Market".
Assign each card a "point value". Every time 100 people (or 1000, depends on how much trading goes on) buy that card from the "Card Commodity Market" (since there's no auction house) the "point value" goes up by one.
Similarly, every time 100 people sell a card, the "point value" goes down by one.
It'd certainly make it easier for us (the owners/moderators of the game) to manage the economy of the world.
Assign each card a "point value". Every time 100 people (or 1000, depends on how much trading goes on) buy that card from the "Card Commodity Market" (since there's no auction house) the "point value" goes up by one.
Similarly, every time 100 people sell a card, the "point value" goes down by one.
It'd certainly make it easier for us (the owners/moderators of the game) to manage the economy of the world.
# posted by : 10/7/08 15:17
: 10/7/08 15:17
Just a quick EVE example to think about:
Many stations have buy orders for common items well below the 'average' sell price, yet these buy orders still get filled. The reason? Some might be new and accept whatever comes up, but for many others, the time it would take to list the item and wait is not worth it, and they would rather take a total profit hit to get the money right away.
This leads to interesting questions, like what price is TOO low to entice people to quick sell, and how long can you wait to sell something for a better price? Add in skills that lower 3rd party costs, and you end up with the best economy in any MMO.
My point though is that with a fixed buy/sell system, all that strategy would be lost. In effect, you prevent anyone from becoming a 'merchant' class in Shandalar. Just something to consider.
Many stations have buy orders for common items well below the 'average' sell price, yet these buy orders still get filled. The reason? Some might be new and accept whatever comes up, but for many others, the time it would take to list the item and wait is not worth it, and they would rather take a total profit hit to get the money right away.
This leads to interesting questions, like what price is TOO low to entice people to quick sell, and how long can you wait to sell something for a better price? Add in skills that lower 3rd party costs, and you end up with the best economy in any MMO.
My point though is that with a fixed buy/sell system, all that strategy would be lost. In effect, you prevent anyone from becoming a 'merchant' class in Shandalar. Just something to consider.
# posted by : 10/7/08 15:24
: 10/7/08 15:24
I'm wondering if a points system along the lines of how Goozex.com works would work well here? Perhaps combined with sumdumguy's Card Commodity idea?
Each card you trade earns you X points, depending on the commodity value of that card. Eventually you could earn enough points to use them as currency to "buy" a card in addition to trading between players.
Each card you trade earns you X points, depending on the commodity value of that card. Eventually you could earn enough points to use them as currency to "buy" a card in addition to trading between players.
I realized another problem with your scheme Tobold.
In trying to limit the economy, you're forcing players to create their own currency. This WILL happen, it's a guarantee, and here's how it will work:
The way you have it set up, trades must be equal. Rare for Rare cards, Uncommon cards for Uncommons &ct.
Good on it's face, but naive. The community will designate a minimum of one card of each type as the 'currency of the realm' and will only accept trades of those particular cards. Even worse, they will set up an exchange rate of values for cards of different tiers. They'll get around your restriction by trading 'junk' cards to each other.
An example:
Player Alice wants card Alpha Strike, a rare card.
Player Bob has Alpha Strike.
Player Alice gives Bob the card Stone of Jordan (also a rare card) and Bob gives Alice Alpha Strike.
Bob can now use the card Stone of Jordan to trade with Chuck, who has Blast Furnace. But Blast Furnace is one of the best rare cards in the game, and it's going to cost Bob more than 1 Stone of Jordan card. Chuck wants one SoJ and three Rock of Jordans (an uncommon card).
This is fairly easy to work around, Chuck trades three 'junk' uncommons for the three Rock of Jordans and Blast Furnace for the Stone of Jordan.
Only, there's a problem. If you don't let people trade multiple TYPES of cards at the same time, after the trade of the three uncommons, Chuck can choose to walk away, and Bob is short three useful cards with no recourse because the Devs don't want an 'economy'.
You can't prevent economies from cropping up, the idea is just too useful and too powerful. What you CAN do, however, is make it easier and safer to trade between players.
In trying to limit the economy, you're forcing players to create their own currency. This WILL happen, it's a guarantee, and here's how it will work:
The way you have it set up, trades must be equal. Rare for Rare cards, Uncommon cards for Uncommons &ct.
Good on it's face, but naive. The community will designate a minimum of one card of each type as the 'currency of the realm' and will only accept trades of those particular cards. Even worse, they will set up an exchange rate of values for cards of different tiers. They'll get around your restriction by trading 'junk' cards to each other.
An example:
Player Alice wants card Alpha Strike, a rare card.
Player Bob has Alpha Strike.
Player Alice gives Bob the card Stone of Jordan (also a rare card) and Bob gives Alice Alpha Strike.
Bob can now use the card Stone of Jordan to trade with Chuck, who has Blast Furnace. But Blast Furnace is one of the best rare cards in the game, and it's going to cost Bob more than 1 Stone of Jordan card. Chuck wants one SoJ and three Rock of Jordans (an uncommon card).
This is fairly easy to work around, Chuck trades three 'junk' uncommons for the three Rock of Jordans and Blast Furnace for the Stone of Jordan.
Only, there's a problem. If you don't let people trade multiple TYPES of cards at the same time, after the trade of the three uncommons, Chuck can choose to walk away, and Bob is short three useful cards with no recourse because the Devs don't want an 'economy'.
You can't prevent economies from cropping up, the idea is just too useful and too powerful. What you CAN do, however, is make it easier and safer to trade between players.
The problem I have with that is the following.
I have 1xSuperCardA worth 22 points. I would really like a SuperCardX, but that's worth 21 points. So, the person trading it to me has to add another card worth 1 point OR another card worth multiple points, which I can pair off with some OTHER card to add up to an equal trade.
It just feels way to difficult to trade at all.
I have 1xSuperCardA worth 22 points. I would really like a SuperCardX, but that's worth 21 points. So, the person trading it to me has to add another card worth 1 point OR another card worth multiple points, which I can pair off with some OTHER card to add up to an equal trade.
It just feels way to difficult to trade at all.
I think you have zero chance of getting people to pay real money for something they can't resell for real money: certainly not using the booster pack model.
Maybe instead you could do something like completing a quest gives you, instead of a card, the right to buy that card as a single, at a pretty low price (10C to a dollar at most).
At least that way, nobody is repeatably farming easy quests to trade for every card in the game. So real money trading will be pretty limited - the farmers can't make sellable resources out of nothing.
Maybe instead you could do something like completing a quest gives you, instead of a card, the right to buy that card as a single, at a pretty low price (10C to a dollar at most).
At least that way, nobody is repeatably farming easy quests to trade for every card in the game. So real money trading will be pretty limited - the farmers can't make sellable resources out of nothing.
rohan asked: How do you define equal value though?
By assigning a dynamic power value to cards that determines their trade value. Same way most MMO developers track information on items in game to determine what needs to be fixed or adjusted.
By assigning a dynamic power value to cards that determines their trade value. Same way most MMO developers track information on items in game to determine what needs to be fixed or adjusted.
МТГ it is curious that that behind trade in cards is not present taxes and it is similar to a free voluntary exchange (even a gift-for of display of the help to other player and the friendship beginning through dialogue during trade in cards) +А here if to limit an exchange of cards distinguishing them Points more troubles for players-beginners (is them will frighten off) And balance of cost points мтг cards illusion....
monopoly post trading on sale virtual мтг cards to players want spiteful speculators will become rich will be limited by points of value at each card at an exchange..... And whether will be in general at such economy in game Speculators???? And whether players will vary among themselves? Ratings-costs of cards to compare) And whether players will have a sensation that cards (for real money) developers of game compel-force to buy them:(
The electronic translator asks for the transfer of a pardon:)
Post a Comment
monopoly post trading on sale virtual мтг cards to players want spiteful speculators will become rich will be limited by points of value at each card at an exchange..... And whether will be in general at such economy in game Speculators???? And whether players will vary among themselves? Ratings-costs of cards to compare) And whether players will have a sensation that cards (for real money) developers of game compel-force to buy them:(
The electronic translator asks for the transfer of a pardon:)
# posted by : 3/11/08 16:25
: 3/11/08 16:25<< Home
