Stable Fees

[Lizzie]

Regarding differing costs for stabling based on time, I don't like it for the reasons stated above.

As for justifying it in game, I like to think that city stables treat mounts like banks treat money. You deposit your mount, they charge you a flat fee. While you keep your mount 'in the stables', they 'rent it out' to all sorts of people for short jobs, mostly virtual - couriers around the city for erdlu, small patrols for beetles, short-order hauling for inix, breeding, and so on.

This also explains why, occasionally, your mount will be slightly hurt when you get it back from the stables. Woops.

It's slightly hurt, because its stats are different. THat's because, it's not the same mount that you brought in. Your inix isn't YOUR inix, when you bring it to a public stables. It's "the inix you're riding today." Sometimes, it's the same size/weight. Sometimes, it's lighter or heavier, or bigger or smaller. Sometimes, it's older or younger. It is usually not the same one that you brought in.

Which is why you wouldn't be charged based on how long it's been there. YOU didn't leave THAT inix there for 10 days. You brought an inix in 10 days ago, it was let out to various other people, and MAYBE returned to you - or maybe someone else is riding it right now. Or maybe someone rode it yesterday, and it got eaten by a mekiillot.

I don't like the idea of changing stable costs for any type of mount, because as someone pointed out already, a half-giant won't have an option of picking an erdlu, or a sunlon, or pretty much anything else. He's stuck with an inix, and due to the nature of a half-giant supposedly being -remarkably stupid-, one would hope he is also at a financial disadvantage as well.

[brytta.leofa]

It's slightly hurt, because its stats are different. THat's because, it's not the same mount that you brought in. Your inix isn't YOUR inix, when you bring it to a public stables. It's "the inix you're riding today." Sometimes, it's the same size/weight. Sometimes, it's lighter or heavier, or bigger or smaller. Sometimes, it's older or younger. It is usually not the same one that you brought in.

Which is why you wouldn't be charged based on how long it's been there. YOU didn't leave THAT inix there for 10 days. You brought an inix in 10 days ago, it was let out to various other people, and MAYBE returned to you - or maybe someone else is riding it right now. Or maybe someone rode it yesterday, and it got eaten by a mekiillot.

I entirely reject this line of argumentation.  I bought Bango from Flora's brother for five hundred sids.  I rode him everywhere and learned him to fight.  He charged at lanky, smelly giths and trampled over them before they could throw spears at th' Lady Templar.  When I got shot dead by dagdum skinnies inexplicably far from home, my ol' dad¹ took him home to his retirement ranch by Menos, where he lived happily ever after.²

You can't take away my Bango.

[RogueGunslinger]

Yeah seriously. It's the same inix. Lets not make IC justifications for OOC limitations, please.

[Desertman]

Yeah seriously. It's the same inix. Lets not make IC justifications for OOC limitations, please.

Edited out actually.

Some people might not even know those mount types exist.

Suffice to say it is the same mount that you get back every single time, without exception.

The only reason the stats change is because it is coded that way, an OOC limitation.

[bcw81]

On the note of giants: If a giant cannot afford a mount, then he shouldn't buy one. There is no hardwritten rule that says every non-elven race must ride mounts at all times outside the city walls.

And before someone says that it's hardly feasible to hunt/etc without a mount - It is entirely possible, and more times than not, much more fun.

[Tisiphone]

The only reason the stats change is because it is coded that way, an OOC limitation.

True, so far as it goes. I (and, extending the benefit of the doubt, Lizzie) was just trying to find an IC justification for something that helps make two OOC constructs plausible.

This isn't actually too far off base from what we normally do. The entire MUD is an OOC construct; IC is just a semi-shared thoughtspace. We take all the OOC constructs and clothe them in IC justifications. We just have more trouble with some than with others, because our general framework is based off of our general framework of empirical experience.

[Desertman]

The only reason the stats change is because it is coded that way, an OOC limitation.

True, so far as it goes. I (and, extending the benefit of the doubt, Lizzie) was just trying to find an IC justification for something that helps make two OOC constructs plausible.

This isn't actually too far off base from what we normally do. The entire MUD is an OOC construct; IC is just a semi-shared thoughtspace. We take all the OOC constructs and clothe them in IC justifications. We just have more trouble with some than with others, because our general framework is based off of our general framework of empirical experience.

Oh no I get that, I'm just clarifying that there isn't a need for justification in this case. It really is the same mount heh.

[Lizzie]

The only reason the stats change is because it is coded that way, an OOC limitation.

True, so far as it goes. I (and, extending the benefit of the doubt, Lizzie) was just trying to find an IC justification for something that helps make two OOC constructs plausible.

This isn't actually too far off base from what we normally do. The entire MUD is an OOC construct; IC is just a semi-shared thoughtspace. We take all the OOC constructs and clothe them in IC justifications. We just have more trouble with some than with others, because our general framework is based off of our general framework of empirical experience.

Oh no I get that, I'm just clarifying that there isn't a need for justification in this case. It really is the same mount heh.

Then how do you explain, ICly, that Mount #1 is now smaller and heavier and younger today, than it was yesterday? Answer: it's not the same one.

[Kastion]

The only reason the stats change is because it is coded that way, an OOC limitation.

True, so far as it goes. I (and, extending the benefit of the doubt, Lizzie) was just trying to find an IC justification for something that helps make two OOC constructs plausible.

This isn't actually too far off base from what we normally do. The entire MUD is an OOC construct; IC is just a semi-shared thoughtspace. We take all the OOC constructs and clothe them in IC justifications. We just have more trouble with some than with others, because our general framework is based off of our general framework of empirical experience.

Oh no I get that, I'm just clarifying that there isn't a need for justification in this case. It really is the same mount heh.

Then how do you explain, ICly, that Mount #1 is now smaller and heavier and younger today, than it was yesterday? Answer: it's not the same one.

the people who run the stables must be damn gickers magically changing my mount! bastards

[Lizzie]

It's a pointless arguement, really. You're suggesting something that doesn't do anything to help the game, doesn't do anything to increase enjoyment of the game, and could very easily result in more people who inappropriately neglect to stable their mounts at all but instead go idle AT the stables while their mount rests, and then go out again. And then you'd have to deal with players being annoyed because "realistically," the stablehand would insist that you pay to use his stable as a resting spot for your mount, but codedly, he isn't because he's an NPC.

And then you'd have to deal with the naysayers who say code trumps RP.

And then blah blah blah...

just seems like a lot of new threads suggesting changes for the sake of changing, and not for any other useful reason.

[bcw81]

I'm suggesting this because I don't like seeing inix in the south, and beetles in the north. That's my main point behind my argument. Adding something like this would, indeed, add to people using mounts -other- than those two for -everything-.

[Kronibas]

THat's because, it's not the same mount that you brought in. e pointed out already, a

If you're using this as a justification for renting then automatically unrenting a mount from the stables so you don't have to, you know... wait, then you're wrong.

For as long as I can remember, this has been considered abusing the code.

[Lizzie]

THat's because, it's not the same mount that you brought in. e pointed out already, a

If you're using this as a justification for renting then automatically unrenting a mount from the stables so you don't have to, you know... wait, then you're wrong.

For as long as I can remember, this has been considered abusing the code.

I'm not seeing -anyone- saying that they're doing that in this thread.

[Lizzie]

I'm suggesting this because I don't like seeing inix in the south, and beetles in the north. That's my main point behind my argument. Adding something like this would, indeed, add to people using mounts -other- than those two for -everything-.

Then be the change.

Play a templar in the north who fines people who come up with beetles. Or a templar in the south who fines people who come down with inixes. Or a Tuluki dwarf with a focus to prevent the invasion of southern mounts into the sacred terrain of the north. Or whatever else. Just because -you- don't like people who come from the south, buying and using war beetles to travel north? Really? That's - a very strange peeve.

[bcw81]

It's blatantly going against the games documentation to have Amos the Southern Hunter going around the southlands on an inix and expecting to have the same upkeep as Talia the Southern Hunter who rides an erdlu.

[Kinther]

I'm suggesting this because I don't like seeing inix in the south, and beetles in the north. That's my main point behind my argument. Adding something like this would, indeed, add to people using mounts -other- than those two for -everything-.

Do you not like seeing particular mounts in other areas of the game for OOC reasons or IC reasons? Because to me it sounds like you're just nitpicking an excerpt from a helpfile that is likely very outdated.

As an alternative to charging people more to stable their mounts in different areas of the game world, why don't we just add additional mounts? Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't a sunlon a crossbreed? Why not a sunback/inix mix?

[Lizzie]

Then think of it this way instead, if it'll help you wrap your mind around the playability issue that Talia has already explained:

It _really_ only costs 2 sids to stable an erdlu, and only 6 sids to stable an inix, and only 5 sids to stable a war beetle, in the opposing cities. So the stablemasters are profiting big-time, but erdlu riders are exploited more because they THINK they're getting off cheap.

[Desertman]

I hate it when threads reach that point of...

"Now I am going to argue just to argue."

I'm out.

[bcw81]

I hate it when threads reach that point of...

"Now I am going to argue just to argue."

I'm out.

[path]

I like this quite a bit. There should be at least one effin' perk to having an erdlu.

[RogueGunslinger]

Incredible speed.

[Majikal]

It would be awesome if the stabling fees for mounts were changed based off the maintenance of the beast. Yes, HG's ride Inix and it would mean an up in cost for them because Inix would cost more to care for. They also pay outrageous (fittingly so) tailoring costs. They also can punch things to death right out of chargen, folks also pay them good coin just to be around now and then.

A pc buying a 'shittier' mount because they're cheaper for maintenance makes sense. A pc willing to pay more to keep there Inix healthy would also makes sense. I think it adds another dynamic into the world to be taken into account, always a good thing IMO.

OOC annoyance of having less coin to buy gear? Punishing players who don't hunt a lot when they go out? Sounds Zalanthan to me, enjoy being broke. Being broke is part of the gameworld too. Great idea IMO, seems like something so obvious it'd already be ig actually.. I'm surprised this hasn't been suggested earlier now that I read it.

[Majikal]

I like this quite a bit. There should be at least one effin' perk to having an erdlu.

>run
you slap an erdlu on the ass and it begins to move at the speed of light.

>e;e;e;e;e;e;e;e;e;e;e;e;e;e;e;e;e;

[Lizzie]

I like this quite a bit. There should be at least one effin' perk to having an erdlu.

>run
you slap an erdlu on the ass and it begins to move at the speed of light.

>e;e;e;e;e;e;e;e;e;e;e;e;e;e;e;e;e;

Erm, more like..
>e;e;e;e;e
An erdlu is too exhausted to move any further.

[RogueGunslinger]

An erdlu can run long enough to get to any of the good resting spots.