Stable Fees

[bcw81]

Reading the documentation on animals, I'd like to posit the idea that some animals should cost more/less to stable than others. Inix, for example, are noted for their voracious hunger, and it even says in the document that only the rich or the people in the North can afford to keep them. So why, then, do the stablemasters only charge twenty coins to keep them fed - the same as erdlu, which are noted to eat remarkably little, even in comparison to a kank. (To be fair on this point, the dox don't state how much a kank actually eats, but... We can imagine it's little, for now)

Of course, size and danger would also be a thing to consider. Would someone storing a mekillot in the stables really have to pay the same as someone storing an erdlu? Or a more real example - An war beetle versus a sunback?

All just musings. I'd kind of like to see something like this implemented, especially to see more people riding animals proper to the area, (no inix in the south, for example) but I could see where it would be a point of contention on an ooc level.

[Desertman]

Reading the documentation on animals, I'd like to posit the idea that some animals should cost more/less to stable than others. Inix, for example, are noted for their voracious hunger, and it even says in the document that only the rich or the people in the North can afford to keep them. So why, then, do the stablemasters only charge twenty coins to keep them fed - the same as erdlu, which are noted to eat remarkably little, even in comparison to a kank. (To be fair on this point, the dox don't state how much a kank actually eats, but... We can imagine it's little, for now)

Of course, size and danger would also be a thing to consider. Would someone storing a mekillot in the stables really have to pay the same as someone storing an erdlu? Or a more real example - An war beetle versus a sunback?

All just musings. I'd kind of like to see something like this implemented, especially to see more people riding animals proper to the area, (no inix in the south, for example) but I could see where it would be a point of contention on an ooc level.

I like the idea in theory. More realism is always good, especially for world economic things like this. In my opinion anyhow.

[Kinther]

While I agree with you that mounts should cost more to stable depending on what they are, I don't think it would make the game any more enjoyable to change things around.

IMO the doc is probably just outdated, just like the erdlu helpfile that references kanks.  Times change.  Maybe the south decided to subsidize feed for their stables?

[bcw81]

Yeah, the dox are quite old and outdated, but that doesn't detract from the fact that some animals just plain eat too much to be stored for the same price as others. If nothing else, racism would up the price for inix/beetles in their respective places.

As a funny side note: "Tarantula meat is wholely unappetizing, though rumors state that some mercenaries have developed a taste for tarantula meat sandwiches, which they consider a test of mettle and a stone-lined stomach."

[Desertman]

I would like to see the length of time you leave your mount and not only its type determine your stable fee for getting it back.

Leaving a inix in the stables for a year should cost you more for stabling it than leaving your erdlu in the stable for a day, but it doesn't.

This would prevent people from doing things like, collecting ten mount tickets and only ever using one mount. I have been guilty of this myself.

Its not realistic, but then again, its always a question of playability versus realism. If we make the game too hard, people wont want to play it.

I'm still in favor of the idea though, heh.

[Kastion]

Doesnt add anything in my opinion. It just makes it more annoying on an OOC level. Anyone in a clan wont have these fees, and indies who arent twinking out will get ripped off horribly. No thanks.

[valeria]

I would like to see the length of time you leave your mount and not only its type determine your stable fee for getting it back.

Leaving a inix in the stables for a year should cost you more for stabling it than leaving your erdlu in the stable for a day, but it doesn't.

This would also make it a lot more difficult on the casual player, which is why I don't like it.

I wouldn't mind seeing some variation in mount stabling prices based on the mount, though.

[bcw81]

Doesnt add anything in my opinion. It just makes it more annoying on an OOC level. Anyone in a clan wont have these fees, and indies who arent twinking out will get ripped off horribly. No thanks.

Well, my suggestion isn't going to change the price horrible. An inix in the southern stables costing 40 coins to get back out instead of 20, and a beetle charging 40 in the northern stables instead of twenty. And both staying the same as they are currently in their respective positions.

[Kinther]

I see increased stable fees for inixes as kind of a slap in the face for half-giant players, since they tend to ride them exclusively (helpfile inix).  Even a twenty coin increase will add up over time and cause more grief than anything.  I could easily see less half-giants being rolled in the south because of this.

[bcw81]

But that's precisely what I'm getting at. Inix's (and other hard-to-sustain animals) should cost a good deal more to look after, especially in places where it is as barren as Allanak.

[Case]

I don't think additional IG challenge that's to do with your IG choices and that's thematic -is- a bad thing. Inix are out of place in the South.

[roughneck]

I like the idea of stable costs being based both on animal type and the amount of time it's stabled for. An independent hunter shouldn't be in possession of ten mounts without having to pay for their upkeep somehow. Also, while we are at it, let's cut the amount the slaughterhouse pays in half.

[Desertman]

But that's precisely what I'm getting at. Inix's (and other hard-to-sustain animals) should cost a good deal more to look after, especially in places where it is as barren as Allanak.

I don't think anyone is really argueing with you here.

I think the general mindset stacked against this is, "It would make it harder for me, I don't like it."

Which is to be expected.

There has to be a balance between realism and playability. Realistically, noone can argue that it makes perfect sense for inix stable fees to be more than those of an erdlu.

But, is doing that going to make it unreasonably unplayable due to the increased hardship put on players in game? I personally don't think so.

I support different fees for different mounts. But, I don't want to see twenty coins here and there, if its worth a change, I want to see the change actually make a difference during the decision process for PC's.

If my stable fee is 100 coins more, I might say, "Wow, I'm not wealthy enough to own a inix, I might stick to a sunback, I mean, I'm just a tuber seller after all, what do I need a inix for anyways?"

If my stable if is 10 or 15 coins more I'm still just going to buy the inx for my tuber seller and not really be affected at all.

Now, my professional mercenary who depends on their mount for their very survival and their profession, they will almost certainly have a war beetle and be more than happy to put the coins forward for it, I mean, they need that, its a necessary expense.



I saw the arguement that House players won't have to pay stable fees so it isn't fair to independents.

Good, for most House positions I have seen the monthly wages are paltry compared to what an indy can earn in a few days, and sometimes doing the exact same job as the House employee. A hunter, for example. Your mount fees are free seems like something that should be a bonus to a House employee and I like that it would be an even greater incentive.

[Kalai]

Another option: Decrease fees for things that eat less.

Basing on time it's stabled for: Would be a slap in the face for casual/limited players.

Slaughterhouse: ?

[Spoon]

I'd like to see it harder to keep an inix. They're massive, and the docs say just how hard they are to keep. Both of these points don't factor a whole lot on the game in a negative fashion.

[Desertman]

Basing on time it's stabled for: Would be a slap in the face for casual/limited players.

What about a max limit for this instead of a time only based system?

Say an inix costs you five coins a game day to stable.

You leave your inix in the stable for five game days, you get back and receive,

"I had to look after it for 5 days. Your fee is 25 coins."

If you leave it in for a long time...lets say....20 game days...(A couple of RL days away from Arm roughly.)

"I had to look after it for 20 days. Your fee is 100 coins."

If you leave it in for basically a leave of abscence from the game....

"I had to look after it for 286 days. Your fee is 100 coins."

This would make it more realistic for people who are in game a lot and getting their mounts in and out often. It might even be cheaper for them in some cases if they are the types who go out every day...

But it would also keep casual/sporadic players from getting 1,500 coin stable fees and making it unplayable.

[Delirium]

You're forgetting about the fact that these animals are being taken out of the stables during virtual time, too. Your character doesn't just disappear into a black hole when you're not pulling their puppet strings. A varying fee based on location and animal type I'd get behind. Stacking fees, however, are a very bad idea for playability and realism's sake.

[Desertman]

You're forgetting about the fact that these animals are being taken out of the stables during virtual time, too. Your character doesn't just disappear into a black hole when you're not pulling their puppet strings. A varying fee based on location and animal type I'd get behind. Stacking fees, however, are a very bad idea for playability and realism's sake.

This is a very good point that I had not considered.

[Lizzie]

Realistically, there's no such thing as an inix, or an erdlu, or a war beetle, or a sunlon, or a sunback. Realistically, arguing the "realism" card is often a pretty dumb thing to do when referring to fantasy animals in a fantasy text game.

[Desertman]

Realistically, there's no such thing as an inix, or an erdlu, or a war beetle, or a sunlon, or a sunback. Realistically, arguing the "realism" card is often a pretty dumb thing to do when referring to fantasy animals in a fantasy text game.

This is where you have to have a little bit of an imagination.

You can imagine that a erdlu would eat less than an inix because the fantasy game documentation says that.

Then you can imagine that it would cost less resources in the fantasay world of the fantasy game to keep that fantasy mount alive.

Of course argueing the realism card for a fantasy setting is pretty dumb, I absolutely agree with you. But, we have to base the mechanics for the game world off of something, and that would be our imagined realism.

[Lizzie]

It's an admitted semantics pet peeve of mine. The word y'all are looking for is "believability" not "realism." There is no such thing as imagined realism. Either it's real, or it's not.

[Desertman]

It's an admitted semantics pet peeve of mine. The word y'all are looking for is "believability" not "realism." There is no such thing as imagined realism. Either it's real, or it's not.

Your mind makes it real....

[Tisiphone]

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.

[brytta.leofa]

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.

...



I'm never stabling a mount again.

[RogueGunslinger]

People other than HG's would just use Beetles. HG's would just feel shafted in the end.