The reward for exalting non starter breed dragons. Does anybody know what it is? Assuming rewards are only level based that means a dragon with a 325k scroll who potentially sells anywhere from 100k-200k depending on genes and colors is absolutely not worth exalting whatsoever. This creates an endless cycle of undercutting. The economy is suffering right now and we all know it. That's to be expected from a game that is about perpetual breeding, right? I find the idea of putting a limit on how many times a dragon can breed absolutely ridiculous, so maybe we should try something more constructive. How about making the reward for exalting a certain percentage of what that breed change scroll costs. FR admin set the pricing for the scrolls so it would be assumed that they believe that is the APPROXIMATE worth of the breed.
We'll just use 20% as an example.
Starter Breeds - 50k breed change scroll
Reward - 10k treasure
Ridgebacks and Pearl Catchers - 250k breed change scroll
Reward - 50k treasure
Spirals and Snappers - 325k breed change scroll
Reward - 65k treasure
Skydancers - 400k breed change scroll
Reward - 80k treasure
This would help to stabilize the economy by creating a standard minimum for dragons. It would put a cap on undercutting because there's no point in selling a spiral for x when you know you can make x amount of treasure for sending it to serve your flight. At the moment there is absolutely no incentive for exalting those more 'desirable' breeds, hence the population issue.
It's almost like a pawn shop. If you're desperate you can in a spur of the moment decision, exalt your dragon for a gaurenteed 20% of it's approximate value. I pitched this idea to my friends and we all agreed we would have no problem exalting common and rarer breeds if this was the case.
The issue that we would run into now is that:
1. Imperials don't have scrolls
2. Wildclaw scrolls sell for gems
For these breeds, we could implement something based on rarity of the breed. Skydancer scrolls are 75k more than the common breeds and have 5 more days on their cool down. Imperials have 5 days longer than Skydancers and are one step up in rarity, so you could speculate if they HAD a scroll it might be in the 475k-500k range, putting them at around 100k for exalting. Wildclaws are a little tricky because the scrolls are a gem item. Instead of trying to slap a treasure worth on them(because it's all based on the current gem to treasure ratio) why not leave behind 20% of the gem value. 400 gems.
You could say:
"This will be abused! People will breed just to make money by exalting!"
This is what people do right now, except with the auction house. Right now the thing being abused is breeding. People breed whatever they can no matter what colors or genes because they want to sell sell sell and make treasure without working for it. Don't let desperate sellers ruin our economy! Instead, let's make an outlet for those people who don't have the patience to get the full worth of their beloved hatchlings.
"What about increased treasure for levels?"
I don't see why that can't be applied on top of this.
"We can't just assume what an Imperial scroll would cost"
No we can't but if Admin is into this idea they sure can!
Overall this idea is really meant to create a standard. It's meant to stop the inevitable fall of all dragon's worth to 10k each. This is more plausible than doing something like creating a limit for how many times a dragon can breed in it's lifetime, or making it so that dragons die(lol, no).
People pay a lot of money to play this game and if there's nothing to create incentive to exalt these breeds and leave behind something worth while things will only get worse. This horrible decline in the economy is going to leave users who have spent their own small fortune on gems feeling cheated and like it wasn't worth it.
Please discuss! I would love to hear what you think would work and what wouldn't.
EDIT: In addition if population and undercutting continues to be an issue(which it will, that's the nature of it) scrolls will no longer be worth buying in the first place which will significantly effect gem purchases as most people I know typically buy gems and then sell them for treasure to purchase the things they need. If a Snapper costs me 50k but the scroll is 325k, you bet your bottom that I'm not gonna buy a scroll. To keep the game worth playing FR Admin would then have to lower the prices of the scrolls(or not, but that would be so silly) which would perpetuate the problem.
We'll just use 20% as an example.
Starter Breeds - 50k breed change scroll
Reward - 10k treasure
Ridgebacks and Pearl Catchers - 250k breed change scroll
Reward - 50k treasure
Spirals and Snappers - 325k breed change scroll
Reward - 65k treasure
Skydancers - 400k breed change scroll
Reward - 80k treasure
This would help to stabilize the economy by creating a standard minimum for dragons. It would put a cap on undercutting because there's no point in selling a spiral for x when you know you can make x amount of treasure for sending it to serve your flight. At the moment there is absolutely no incentive for exalting those more 'desirable' breeds, hence the population issue.
It's almost like a pawn shop. If you're desperate you can in a spur of the moment decision, exalt your dragon for a gaurenteed 20% of it's approximate value. I pitched this idea to my friends and we all agreed we would have no problem exalting common and rarer breeds if this was the case.
The issue that we would run into now is that:
1. Imperials don't have scrolls
2. Wildclaw scrolls sell for gems
For these breeds, we could implement something based on rarity of the breed. Skydancer scrolls are 75k more than the common breeds and have 5 more days on their cool down. Imperials have 5 days longer than Skydancers and are one step up in rarity, so you could speculate if they HAD a scroll it might be in the 475k-500k range, putting them at around 100k for exalting. Wildclaws are a little tricky because the scrolls are a gem item. Instead of trying to slap a treasure worth on them(because it's all based on the current gem to treasure ratio) why not leave behind 20% of the gem value. 400 gems.
You could say:
"This will be abused! People will breed just to make money by exalting!"
This is what people do right now, except with the auction house. Right now the thing being abused is breeding. People breed whatever they can no matter what colors or genes because they want to sell sell sell and make treasure without working for it. Don't let desperate sellers ruin our economy! Instead, let's make an outlet for those people who don't have the patience to get the full worth of their beloved hatchlings.
"What about increased treasure for levels?"
I don't see why that can't be applied on top of this.
"We can't just assume what an Imperial scroll would cost"
No we can't but if Admin is into this idea they sure can!
Overall this idea is really meant to create a standard. It's meant to stop the inevitable fall of all dragon's worth to 10k each. This is more plausible than doing something like creating a limit for how many times a dragon can breed in it's lifetime, or making it so that dragons die(lol, no).
People pay a lot of money to play this game and if there's nothing to create incentive to exalt these breeds and leave behind something worth while things will only get worse. This horrible decline in the economy is going to leave users who have spent their own small fortune on gems feeling cheated and like it wasn't worth it.
Please discuss! I would love to hear what you think would work and what wouldn't.
EDIT: In addition if population and undercutting continues to be an issue(which it will, that's the nature of it) scrolls will no longer be worth buying in the first place which will significantly effect gem purchases as most people I know typically buy gems and then sell them for treasure to purchase the things they need. If a Snapper costs me 50k but the scroll is 325k, you bet your bottom that I'm not gonna buy a scroll. To keep the game worth playing FR Admin would then have to lower the prices of the scrolls(or not, but that would be so silly) which would perpetuate the problem.
