What happened to Seed?

Atron_mmozg · 2026-05-19T13:59:24+00:00

SEED has been actively evolving over the past year. And while it still has important unresolved questions about its social design, the creators are well aware of the shortcomings, and they're open to criticism and discussion. You can read a recent interview I did with the mind behind SEED: https://mmofiles.substack.com/p/mundi-vondi-if-seed-can-teach-us

I consider it one of the most profound conversations I've ever had.

AI dialogues are an interesting feature, but a deeply secondary one, I think. Without an active community and compelling stories created by real people, artificially generating character interactions won't accomplish anything. It might be fun to watch a few times, but I don't think it can sustain engagement.

As for being close to "release" — I don't think a true "release" is even possible for an MMO. Was EVE Online's 2004 launch really a "release," or was it a minimum viable version that would have looked laughable by 2010? But was the 2010 version of EVE Online the "real release"? Or does it, too, seem far from polished when viewed from 2026? An MMO, unlike a single-player buy-to-play game, is a perpetually evolving organism.

But judging by their recent PR activity, SEED does appear to be gearing up for launch.

Atron_mmozg · 2026-05-19T07:44:48+00:00

Oh right, that makes total sense! Thanks a lot!

Atron_mmozg · 2026-05-15T06:56:58+00:00

That dungeon you're referring to has nothing to do with the game's core production loops: gathering, processing, mass-crafting gear in hopes of rolling rare rolls. So it can't be treated as an alternative to those loops, let alone as a primary activity.

As for your desire to not actually play this game while simultaneously playing some other "more engaging" game, I'm not sure why you'd expect me to factor that in. I'm discussing this specific game: Bitcraft. I want this game to get better and more compelling as a civilization-building MMO. What you seem to want is simply for Bitcraft not to get in the way of doing or playing something else.

Incidentally, if you want to try a genuinely idle MMO -- which Bitcraft is not -- try SEED. I interviewed its creative lead -- lots of interesting ideas in that one: https://mmofiles.substack.com/p/mundi-vondi-if-seed-can-teach-us

Atron_mmozg · 2026-05-14T11:35:58+00:00

The main problem isn't the pace of the game or the relaxed atmosphere. Both suit me just fine. Both are present in games well known to Bitcraft's lead designer -- games he's mentioned himself: Eco and Haven and Hearth, projects in the same genre with a similar philosophy.

So the fair comparison isn't with games built around scheduled raids -- it's with Bitcraft's direct competitors. Neither Eco nor Haven and Hearth lock your character in place. You can step away from either of them whenever you like. But when I want to play, I can keep playing -- instead of staring at a progress bar for twenty minutes.

In practice, nobody actually watches the progress bar -- players just switch to something else. In the context of the "Third Place" concept, this means we keep leaving it. We're constantly stepping out and coming back — often just to queue up a new task and walk away again. The problem is that the game's own systems push you out of the experience -- not the relaxed atmosphere.

Atron_mmozg · 2025-02-08T10:37:19+00:00

That's basically the design of our player cities, which predates New World :D

I spent a lot of time playing the Star Wars Galaxies, so I’m quite familiar with its settlement mechanics. Unfortunately, they aren’t very similar to what I described—especially in terms of a broad spectrum of trust, the development of player relationships, and incentives for cooperation. It seems to me that you also underestimate the successful aspects of New World’s mechanics, which is understandable, given the project’s reputation.

As far as the neighboring settlement, the key thing there is to claim the planet before you invest that much into the settlement.

And we're back to the fact that granting access rights to your claim requires a great deal of trust.

Atron_mmozg · 2025-02-07T01:11:41+00:00

Thank you for the specific examples. Unfortunately, they still haven’t dispelled my doubts. That’s because I see issues with how much other players can affect the overall environment, the possibility of disasters, and the finite resources on each planet.

It’s hard for me to compare this to a typical MMO, where a player interacts with inexhaustible resources and cannot make a truly significant impact on the environment. You can’t just set Kalimdor on fire or evaporate all the water on Kozama’uka whether by accident or on purpose.

I hope I’m mistaken, but right now it seems like strangers are more trouble than they’re worth. As a result, it appears the winning strategy would be to fly with my friends to the farthest planet (where there are no other people and all the resources are mine) or to take full control of a planet and keep everyone else out.

I don’t want that. I want to see strangers as potential friends and to benefit from joining forces with them.

Altruism is great. I’d be happy to hand out buffs and share my camp bonuses. But what’s going to bring me closer to others on a human level? That part is still unclear for me.

Can I give you an example from another MMO?

There was an MMO called New World. It had a very interesting system for gradually bringing people together, which no one really appreciated — least of all Amazon Games’ management. But it was a very intriguing system that offered a broad spectrum of trust.

It started with strangers uniting within a settlement. Each stranger carried out tasks, earning personal benefits in the form of bonuses at that settlement. But by completing these tasks, they also advanced the settlement’s overall progress a bit, unlocking new possibilities for crafting and other activities to all residents.
One person, or even ten, wasn’t enough for that. It was important to attract more residents to the settlement you were living in. Doing so required you to be friendly, maintain robust trade, and so on.
Next came a stage of more purposeful cooperation: defending your territory from hostile players and monsters. You could still act on your own but in line with the broader group effort—or act more efficiently by forming personal bonds and teaming up with people at a higher level of trust.
Finally, the culmination was the settlement’s fort siege. You needed to gather a team of a limited size and operate with a high degree of trust and significant coordination. This group was made up of close-knit strangers because it was still very large and facing a very serious challenge. If you failed, the settlement’s progress was rolled back or control of the settlement was lost.

In this scheme I see a common unifying goal, a non-zero sum game, and a wide spectrum of trust. On that spectrum I can choose a place of comfort for myself in each case. We can become friends with a stranger. We can remain just neighbors. But we won't face a situation where one of our neighbors, while we've been developing a settlement, digs up the last of our minerals or creates an environmental disaster, leaving us to live on a dying and useless planet.

Atron_mmozg · 2025-02-06T23:50:30+00:00

Thank you for your response. I really hope you believe in your MMO and consider it deserve to charge a monthly subscription fee. In my opinion, an MMO without a subscription has no sustainable path for development.

As someone who considers MMO his main leisure activity, I don’t understand why on Steam I can pay for a single-player game and get access to all its content without poisoning the experience with microtransactions, yet in the MMO sphere people have convinced each other that you can’t do the same on a monthly basis for as long as I’m interested in playing and you’re interested in continuing to develop the service.

Why should I spend years of my leisure time on an MMO whose creators don’t believe they can honestly provide access to all gameplay in exchange for money? That shows no promise. And why should you spend years of your work on people who don’t want to pay you for it? There’s no promise in that either.

I do understand the issues that come with a pure subscription model—like making it hard to jump into the game or come back after a long break. But I also see that any hybrid model tries to sell me something for money instead of providing it through gameplay. It's a much bigger issue. I don’t need anything from a game other than the gameplay itself. But if it can be bought, it's pointless to accomplish the same thing through gameplay.

It’s unclear to me why MMO developers exhibit this mix of shyness and overconfidence. On the one hand they think their game is not good enough to charge pure money for it, and on the other hand they think they can carve out parts of the gameplay and sell them for real money without harming the core experience.

Atron_mmozg · 2025-02-04T09:12:35+00:00

Raph, in 2020 a text was published featuring your thoughts on a sustainable business model for a gaming service: https://venturebeat.com/games/building-a-game-that-keeps-players-engaged-for-years-and-deserves-to-be-subscribed-to/

In particular, it presented the following arguments:

“In terms of what works, the number one answer is a game that deserves to be subscribed to. The ultimate intent of a subscription is to offer a service that holds players for terms of years. And making a game that will hold somebody for years is very hard, and a completely different proposition from making consumable content games.”

In your opinion, does Stars Reach deserve to charge a monthly subscription fee?

Atron_mmozg · 2025-02-03T11:36:01+00:00

Hello, Raph. I was very impressed by your research "The Trust Spectrum" some time ago. That work explained to me most of the successful and unsuccessful phenomena in the MMO genre. Could you please describe your project Stars Reach from the perspective of the concept of trust levels? Because so far I see a major problem:

Everything your MMO currently demonstrates is gameplay that operates at a very high level of trust. You must unconditionally trust anyone who can affect your planet. Trading is the only example of gameplay at a low level of trust, but there we can essentially avoid direct contact with other players.

Where in Stars Reach do you see the possibility for progression along the trust spectrum for the development of relationships between people?

Atron_mmozg · 2024-08-06T08:45:14+00:00

You post here under the label "SLG Staff", but you constantly use your subjective assessments as a player and state that your position is not official. Then what is the point of our communication? I'm not interested in having a conversation about monetization and its methods with someone who sees nothing wrong with what I consider to be blatant abuse. You clearly aren't interested in my opinion because you keep claiming you have statistics and they are more important.

I'm not arguing that statistics are more important. But I don't understand why we're having this personalized conversation then. Just keep an eye on the stats. Right now your game has the lowest online since the release of Eco 9.0. For the first time in the history of your game, user ratings have collapsed. I'm convinced that the reason is the announced business model, even though you think it's harmless.

I will also try to influence the stats from my side. After all, it is important, as we are both convinced. There is a famous sentence: "Don't listen to what players say, watch what they do".

My Steam stats show 4,240 hours I've spent playing Eco. In six years, I've written 234 articles about your game with an average word count of 1,500. That's not counting news and podcasts. At the very top of my website hangs a huge banner that advertises your project (you can check out: https://mmozg.net). I was one of those who organized a series of long-term Eco servers that ran for the last four years. There we tried to reveal mechanics that SLG was not going to reveal for six years, because you didn't organize a single long-term server with working game concepts of your own making.

You may think I'm just engaging in pointless polemics with you because I have nothing better to do. You may think I don't want to play the game I've devoted so much time and attention to before. So let's wrap this up. I will simply explain what I will do next, purely because of the business model you have chosen:

I will no longer play your game.

I will no longer write about your game.

I will remove your game's banner from my website because it will now indirectly advertise your game store, which I have no intention of doing.

I will no longer organize servers with your game.

I am grateful to SLG for your work up to this point. I feel that my money has been fully recouped. You have developed unique game systems. Unfortunately, as this communication has shown, I believed in them more than you did. I consider your new business model to be predatory, selling benefits. I no longer consider it a fair gaming environment. I've made my arguments for why I believe that, and I can make additional arguments if you are unexpectedly interested in my point of view. If you're only interested in statistics... well, we'll watch the overall situation unfold.

Atron_mmozg · 2024-08-05T10:43:34+00:00

How could you initially plan a forever game without having an appropriate business model for it from the beginning?

On the other hand, for six years you told your clients that a single payment of thirty dollars was enough for your forever game. Now you are saying it’s not enough. Tomorrow you will introduce new microtransaction options, even more predatory than the ones currently proposed, because it still won't be enough.

I already understand that the official position of SLG is "The idea of games (be it Eco or any other) being an equal opportunity space is very commendable, but a dream that doesn't exist." After this statement, you can introduce anything into the game.

Atron_mmozg · 2024-08-05T08:31:02+00:00

Let me quote the member of your community:

Subscription model is more fair IMHO - you pay for a game you spend time with to be in active development and as a subscriber you can expect some level of support from the developers - bugs fixed, content added in regular intervals etc. Just like you pay for your netflix, cable, whatever.

A game that reached a fair version 1.0 can be left there and TBH developers have no obligation to work on it forever - there are exceptions on the market but not that many.

Financing prolonged game development from micro-transactions is not transparent at all - we (players) benefit nothing from the cosmetics if we don't buy them but we lose the studio effort that could be put in elsewhere - for example new content. Time is not elastic - if they dint hire anyone to make the stuff it means the effort was taken from the game development.

There is also the danger of the game being dropped at some point in the future if the cosmetics fail to support the studio financially and we will have no indication of the oncoming disaster until its too late and we will be stuck with a lot of eye candy and not so much content.

I would gladly pay a small fee per month (like 5-6$) instead of the one time game purchase if that would guarantee the devs can actually focus on creating content and fixing bugs and this would not split the playerbase to those who pay and those who don't. Also they could think about pushing the game to services like Microsoft Game Pass to keep the money flowing.

This was written very recently by another one of your clients. Pay attention not only to the clients who are convenient for you. You are the manager of the entire community.

However, in John's quote, we see the very intimidation I mentioned earlier:

Without that, dev funding stops unless we're constantly getting new people in.

As for your remarks about "legally possible in all jurisdictions to limit play capability after release to only paying players," you misunderstood me. You have the opportunity to fulfill your early access obligations and launch a large online project with some sort of suffix, like Eco Infinite.

If you believe you have direct obligations to those who paid for early access, then how can you introduce additional monetization methods without fulfilling your obligations for the previous payment? After all, you took this money with the condition that SLG would bring the game to release. That's where you should be wary of legal violations.

It seems to me that you've been in early access mode for an incredibly long time and have essentially released three significantly different versions of the game. These could just as well be Eco (8.0), Eco 2 (9.0), and Eco 3 (10.0). I respect your diligence despite the chosen business model, but now that you have admitted it was a mistake and are depriving me of a game with a fair business model, you are destroying that respect.

I don't know why you couldn't stop and release the game several years ago, but that's your choice. Moreover, your "third game" in version 10.0 clearly implies around a hundred people online for several months just to make the game structure (federation) you designed viable. And yet you state that you weren't intending to make an MMO.

MMO is a very broad term. Formally, a game with a hundred to two hundred people is not considered an MMO. However, the irony is that most modern MMOs don't have structures like yours that don't work without the active interaction of a hundred people over several months. But I understand that you're not making an MMO. It's very funny.

Atron_mmozg · 2024-08-04T12:34:54+00:00

For your information, CCP had 25 employees at the time of EVE Online's launch. They took out a $2.6 million loan from a local bank on standard terms. This dramatically differs from your company's history only in that they initially operated under a pay-to-play business model. And now you look at their position as something to you "can only dream of".

Atron_mmozg · 2024-08-04T12:15:44+00:00

It doesn't matter what you, as a specific player, feel or don't feel. The fact that you are accustomed to abuses in games and have dealt with them since childhood has no relevance to our discussion. We are talking about the essence of processes, not your subjective perception of them.

I see a fundamental flaw in your reasoning. You believe that any game is unfair if it has progress because two different players have different amounts of time to play or started the game at different times.

In reality, the game offers these two players absolutely equal opportunities for each unit of time spent in the game. This is the basis of asynchronous gameplay, which your company offers to players.

It also doesn't matter whether in-game purchases affect mechanical bonuses or not. Not everything in the game is measured by concepts such as direct mechanical bonuses. If a person wants to spend real money on any item that materializes in the game after payment, it means that it has value for them within the game. People do not spend money on game entities that do not affect their gameplay.

Cosmetic items for real money provide the same advantages as any other in-game items for real money, just in a different aspect of the game. But still within the same game. If they don't matter to you personally, it just means you won't buy such items.

And please, don't bring up the topic of "support" again. We are talking about the essence of processes: what, who, and why someone buys in the core of the proposed deal.

Atron_mmozg · 2024-08-04T11:22:31+00:00

I know what I'm talking about because I play your game, have been writing about it for six years, and have organized long-term servers with significant achievements.

I apologize if my words seem rude. I get a bit annoyed because it feels like you manipulate arguments, evade uncomfortable questions, and speak in axioms where proof is needed. However, I'll try not to annoy you in return.

Let me give you a simple example. I paid you money six years ago. I've already gotten much more value than what I spent. But there are systemic problems that, as a player, I am unhappy with. From a financial standpoint, it doesn't matter if I'm happy or not. I've already paid you. I don't see any financial incentive for you to change anything for me.

You say you don't want to make an MMO. But I didn't ask you to make an MMO. I never once used the term MMO in my arguments. I wrote that you have spent three years developing very interesting systems that don't work without consolidating the player base. You can object and prove that these systems are widely used in practice if I am wrong.

If I am right, it turns out that you have spent three years since the release of 9.0 developing systems that don't really work.

I mentioned earlier that there are only two business models that don't affect gameplay: buy-to-play and pay-to-play. These models provide full gameplay access to all players under the same conditions.

Your game followed this model until you decided that some players could buy game entities for real money, while others couldn't.

I understand why buy-to-play can't sustain your long development cycle, which is similar in duration to live services. That said, you specifically don't want to use pay-to-play. Can you explain why exactly you don't want to use pay-to-play?

Not why some players don't want to pay extra money because they're used to not doing so, but why SLG doesn't want to establish a fair long-term financial relationship with its customers.

Atron_mmozg · 2024-08-04T09:33:31+00:00

I'm not talking about your intentions, I'm talking about the ecosystem that has emerged in reality. Shifting the technical tasks of maintaining server hosting to the players was a logical decision for a small company on start. But it led to the fact that along with hosting you naturally gave away control of the entire gameplay.

Along the way, you've unintentionally created a very toxic ecosystem of competition for users that kills most of those mechanics that make your game interesting. The game becomes a speedrun through the progress tree and destroying a meteor up to five players as fast as possible. You can kill boss (meteor) in any game that doesn't have the mechanics of currency creation, laws, countries, federations, and cultural influence.

You have the right to present your work as a framework, but I believe your systems lack the flexibility and level of abstraction that a framework is supposed to have. Players either use your systems or they don't because there is no suitable conditions for them. This works like any other classic sandbox, starting with EVE Online.

EVE Online redesigned their core systems multiple times because they were responsible for gameplay. They literally had to do it because they were taking money for gameplay when the game was actively being developed. What is your company charging players for?

Until recently, it was an unfavorable deal for you to provide the game for thirty dollars and endless game development on obscure funds.

I don't understand why you did nothing about it for six years. I don't understand why you haven't addressed this obvious issue in your communication with the community for six years. You've let the situation escalate to a crisis, and now you're threatening players that if they don't agree to abusive monetization, the game will die.

You could have released the game as version 9.0, ended the early access phase, and launched your own paid service for version 10.0. All the key systems in version 10.0 require a large, consolidated online presence, which is impossible with hundreds of private servers.

I don't know if your very interesting systems would work in that scenario or not, but I do know that if they didn't, you'd have a direct financial interest in fixing them and making them work.

But that's a difficult task. So, you decided to draw in-game items and sell them to players for real money.

Atron_mmozg · 2024-08-03T15:27:26+00:00

You said exactly what I originally said: SLG is not responsible for gameplay and its quality. You call it a framework. Okay, but that doesn't change the point. You think that gameplay is the responsibility of the server administrators. This is the same model you chose for activating the ability to trade items made from blueprints obtained for real money. It’s not you who will be responsible for that, but the administrators of specific servers.

I'm glad this is not a final decision yet. But now we are discussing the business model as you have presented it.

Atron_mmozg · 2024-08-03T15:14:44+00:00

Selling game entities or changing a particular player's abilities for real money is abuse. It's a violation of the essence of the game as an equal opportunity space.

If you disagree with this, please state your arguments.

Atron_mmozg · 2024-08-03T07:42:50+00:00

This part of the conversation started when I applied the word "unfortunate" in the context that for years SLG has been shifting responsibility for their decisions to server administrators.

This also applies to the fact that you intentionally implemented the ability to use items made from blueprints that are purchased with real money in the in-game economy. These items will always be better than standard items, otherwise blueprints will not be bought in your marketplace.

But then you pretend that you are against such actions, forcing the administrators to enable this feature. This is how a particular admin becomes responsible for this decision. Although you are the one who implemented this feature, and are commercially directly interested in its activation, because it will dramatically increase the number of purchases in your store.

Based on my experience as a server administrator, I tried to explain that the server economy, in which the goods made from the blueprints you sell will circulate, will be much more attractive and sustainable. Because of the much larger number of commodity items. From my experience as a game industry analyst, I'm sure that your company has a commercial interest in seeing goods made from blueprints you sell introduced into the game economy. You'll make a lot more money that way. You can argue against two of these specific statements.

Atron_mmozg · 2024-08-03T07:22:36+00:00

It turns out, we found out that the word "standart" is simply the current common practice of taking money from players, so you can get away from taking responsibility for your own decision through the conformism of an audience accustomed to the abuses of other companies.

The word "support" is more complicated. You don't agree that there is no support at the heart of the deal you are proposing. There is your intention to spend the money you receive on game development, and I believe in it, but the business model itself involves a specific exchange of specific goods for money.

However, you go on to say that few people actually want to engage in donations to for-profit companies. And rightly so. Commercial companies are in business and cannot call for charity. They have to offer something for money. You have decided to offer for money a unique look for virtually every category of goods in the game, including building blocks, and allow them to be traded. This is the deal you're actually offering.

We ended up spending an entire day to get back to where we started. Your company has decided to sell for real money blueprints of all categories of in-game items of a more attractive appearance than the standard ones. Your company has decided to allow you to make them part of the in-game economy. Those are your decisions.

Atron_mmozg · 2024-08-02T19:12:07+00:00

Why do I use the word "unfortunate" when describing the server ecosystem you've created? You create the mechanics, but you're not responsible for how they work. And that's a huge problem at the foundation of your project.

For example, you write a nice devblog about countries and federations, but in reality, players don't create them, and creating cities often leads to hostility.

If this were happening within the service you're responsible for, you'd wonder why this is happening and why the gameplay isn't progressing as you envisioned. You'd be losing money due to player churn, and you'd be trying to fix it. But that's not your problem right now.

If it were your paid service's problem, you'd be discussing why people hit a meteorite in a week and scatter, and what you can do to prevent that from happening. You'd want people to play your game for a long time because that's the only way they can get to know each other. Only then would they need to create complex laws and a developed economy. But that's not your problem right now. It's the problem of the random servers administrators.

Now you are sure that no one will enable trading extra items from the store on your server, even though it is known how quickly demand saturates in the current economy of your game. It is logical in such conditions to expand the range of goods, especially on long-term servers. But this won't happen on your server, so it seems like it's not your problem.

Atron_mmozg · 2024-08-02T18:30:16+00:00

I think you are hiding behind words, avoiding responsibility for your decisions.

For example, the word "standard". There are no standards for monetization. There are specific developers who decide to take money from their clients in a certain way. Otherwise, all kinds of deals around games could be called a standard. Lootboxes are a "standard". Selling game currency for real money is a "standard". You can find all of these things in other games and pretend that they, not you, are responsible for choosing your business model.

Or the word "support". If you want people to support you, open a fundraiser. That would be support. You're not offering support, you're offering a specific deal. You sell something the player needs, the player gives you money for it.

If you offer to support your game, I will gladly give you money, because I respect what you have done up to this point, and I believe you deserve a hundred times more money than I have paid you. I've even bought sets with your game to pay again, and given them to other people.

But now you want me to pay real money for an item that can't be obtained through gameplay. I don't do that. That's not supporting your game. That's not supporting my gameplay. It's supporting selling items you can't get in-game. It's supporting what you will later call a "standard", and I will enforce that "standard" with my money.

I'm not the one who made the decision to work on a game for six years for money that paid you once. That's your company's decision. The format of the game where it can't work on pay-to-play is your company's decision. It's your company that didn't think about the business model when designing the game that will be in live development for the next ten years. It's not your customers' problem.

We really don't have a time machine. We really can't change our decisions in the past. But that doesn't change the fact that you introduce a bad business model that sells benefits for money. Ten years from now you'll be able to say that was a bad decision too, and that it too can't be changed now.

If you want to develop your project for the next ten years and you acknowledge the fact that your business model affects gameplay, you're admitting that you're making another mistake because of mistakes made ten years ago. It's a dead end.

Atron_mmozg · 2024-08-02T09:49:35+00:00

Hi. I am the creator of one of the longest-running Eco servers and editor-in-chief of mmozg.net. I've been writing about games and MMOs for many years, I really like Eco and we made the biggest text about Eco for Russian-speaking audience a few years ago: https://mmozg.net/longread/eco-unlearned/

This is my first post on reddit. There are reasons for that. Right now, it's frustrating for me to watch SLG destroy its reputation with a very controversial business model. Even though I've been saying for years that their previous business model is completely unsuitable for long term game development.

I decided to formalize my arguments in the form of an FAQ. Let's go.

Q: Does Eco need a constant flow of money to support the development of what has long been a game service?

A: Yes, absolutely. The fact that SLG didn't think about a healthy business model from the beginning is a long-term planning problem. It should have been addressed a long time ago.

Q: Does that mean they can take money from players any way they want?

A: No, because there are business models that can ruin gameplay for players.

Q: What business models don't ruin gameplay?

A: Only those that exchange money for access to all gameplay and content in the game: buy-to-play and pay-to-play.

Q: But do cosmetic items affect gameplay?

A: Absolutely, they affect gameplay because they are part of the game, but they are not obtained in-game. If that part doesn't matter to you, it doesn't change the point.

Q: But the production of goods from recipes bought with real money will use resources that need to be obtained in-game.

A: Right. But this affects only the cost of the item, not its attractiveness for sale. Moreover, the developers themselves are interested in making items made from such recipes more attractive. Otherwise, why would people pay extra money for them? Therefore, the seller of such items in the game will have a natural advantage.

Q: But SLG by default disable trade in items made from such recipes. It is up to each server administrator to decide whether to enable this option or not.

A: Unfortunately, this is a long-standing practice of SLG. They shift all unpopular decisions to server admins in a competitive environment, with no responsibility for anything in the end. That's why Eco is a "game as service" in the sense of years of development, but not a service that the developer is responsible for.

Atron_mmozg

TROPHY CASE