The ingame economy is limited to a inflationary cash-flow.
1. Millions of dappers can be generated every day by only one single player. There's no income limit for high level players, there are no taxes, and no social funds, nothing that must be payed in order to earned money.
Fact: Every day the currency loses it's value, because the amount of currency will grow controlless.
2. At the other side there are not many possibilities, to raise the ingame currencies worth by selling something nessecary. You can pay dappers for one appartment or a guild (endless building grounds won't raise appartements - or storage - worth), one mount, three packers (endless available pets won't raise in worth), a civilization membership, transporter pacts, guards for op fights (not so neutral players), drillers, for the gubani wheel. But this and some more things are not enough, to stabilize the ingame currencies worth.
At this point there could be the consideration, if Game-vs-Players-economy could be orientated on the players financial success by paying not a fixed amount. Instead of paying "1.000.000 dappers" there could be a price of "25 Percent of earned money, minimum 1.000.000 dappers".
But in fact this will raise the need of earning dappers, and only more dappers must be earned.
3. Financial transactions between players are limited by the traders limit of the maximum of 9999% of an fixed item worth. So the traders are only a kind of added storage for 'not so worthy items', but not a place, where tradings could make a economical sense.
At one side there are billions of dappers - at the other side there are the abilities, to earn this dappers by producing very good items, and sell them e. g. for better materials for crafting (OP materials). But for less dappers noone would love it to sell his perfect items, cost and income isn't very good balanced by fixing a maximum price at the traders.
In fact this will mean, very good items will rarely be sold on a trader. In other games there are market places - if anyone wants to sell something special, he'll pay for his store, and put his sales in it. New players will see the growing prices, and if they are'nt in a guild, they 'd start to complain about the ingame economy again. Here a higher price for the players store, depending on the worth of sold items, could regulate too high prices for the sales in it.
So, in fact, binding the ingame worth of the ingame currency to a real-life worth will not make the ingame-situation better or more balanced. But only a few mathematical ingame additions, like
- a central bank to fix every day, what 9999% of a item could be worth in dappers at a certain time (e. g. dependig on the value of dappers / sold items at the server),
- a central auction institute for players vs players transactions that are'nt limited to "item-vs-dappers", or
- racial currencies, that must be changed in order of an racial central bank with the dapper currency to buy something at the racial traders,
can give the the economical side of this game a great impulse forward.
1. Millions of dappers can be generated every day by only one single player. There's no income limit for high level players, there are no taxes, and no social funds, nothing that must be payed in order to earned money.
Fact: Every day the currency loses it's value, because the amount of currency will grow controlless.
2. At the other side there are not many possibilities, to raise the ingame currencies worth by selling something nessecary. You can pay dappers for one appartment or a guild (endless building grounds won't raise appartements - or storage - worth), one mount, three packers (endless available pets won't raise in worth), a civilization membership, transporter pacts, guards for op fights (not so neutral players), drillers, for the gubani wheel. But this and some more things are not enough, to stabilize the ingame currencies worth.
At this point there could be the consideration, if Game-vs-Players-economy could be orientated on the players financial success by paying not a fixed amount. Instead of paying "1.000.000 dappers" there could be a price of "25 Percent of earned money, minimum 1.000.000 dappers".
But in fact this will raise the need of earning dappers, and only more dappers must be earned.
3. Financial transactions between players are limited by the traders limit of the maximum of 9999% of an fixed item worth. So the traders are only a kind of added storage for 'not so worthy items', but not a place, where tradings could make a economical sense.
At one side there are billions of dappers - at the other side there are the abilities, to earn this dappers by producing very good items, and sell them e. g. for better materials for crafting (OP materials). But for less dappers noone would love it to sell his perfect items, cost and income isn't very good balanced by fixing a maximum price at the traders.
In fact this will mean, very good items will rarely be sold on a trader. In other games there are market places - if anyone wants to sell something special, he'll pay for his store, and put his sales in it. New players will see the growing prices, and if they are'nt in a guild, they 'd start to complain about the ingame economy again. Here a higher price for the players store, depending on the worth of sold items, could regulate too high prices for the sales in it.
So, in fact, binding the ingame worth of the ingame currency to a real-life worth will not make the ingame-situation better or more balanced. But only a few mathematical ingame additions, like
- a central bank to fix every day, what 9999% of a item could be worth in dappers at a certain time (e. g. dependig on the value of dappers / sold items at the server),
- a central auction institute for players vs players transactions that are'nt limited to "item-vs-dappers", or
- racial currencies, that must be changed in order of an racial central bank with the dapper currency to buy something at the racial traders,
can give the the economical side of this game a great impulse forward.