I think (though I'm not sure) the problem is that the more money the richest players have, the more difficult it is for newer players to do a lot of things that make the game fun. For example, a breeding to Reach for the Moon, the dominant top turf sprint sire, cost $100,000 before he was pensioned. Some stables, even if they're trying hard and have a sizable barn, may not make much more than that in a season. It certainly won't be economically viable for many stables to breed to him (or even $50,000 sires, or even $30,000). However, RFTM was consistently booked full every year because players with $20M can afford to send 20-30 mares to him. This becomes a positive feedback loop, because when RFTM and other top sires inevitably produce the best horses, the players that bred those horses win the biggest purses, and so on. New players essentially have very little chance to win big races - or even breed good horses that can win allowance races - unless they get lucky with breeding or go on a crazy grind.Durzo Blint wrote: ↑2 years ago Can someone explain to me why "having too much sim $" in the sim economy is a bad thing?
In RL, if there is massive amounts of inflation, then basic costs rise and hurt the low income people. I do not see boarding fees increasing or stud fees or shipping costs or any of the basic costs needed to live in the SIM. The players with a ton of money are able to buy any Stewardbred horse they want, but that will still be the case in all the proposed situations above. The limits imposed on auctions and stewardbreds allow for the players with not crazy bankrolls to be able to grab one, not by taking money away from the top top players.
Maybe I'm just missing something? Is the thought that the top players will become bored and give their money away? Or would everyone just start to increase the basic costs?
I mean does it matter if the top players have $40M instead of $60M in their sim bank accounts?
However, when you take money out of the game on a scale that taxes richer players more, you reduce that effect. Maybe a person with $15M instead of $20M only sends 15 mares this year. They'll also probably send fewer mares to those $50,000 and $30,000 studs overall. Players with $4M instead of $5M, for example, will certainly change their breeding patterns. On a large scale, this becomes a noticeable difference and stud fees drop as a result. The better studs become more accessible, smaller and newer barns have better chances at winning those big races, but more importantly, they have more of chance of breeding solid money-earners that will give them a sustainable income. The big players can still have their Stewardbreds and breed their glamour mares to the big sires, but maybe at a lesser scope. The smaller players get better access to good sires and more of a chance to win those expensive races. More fun for everyone collectively.