Furthering commerce and trade on Zalanthas

[Harmless]

Maybe not an auction house, but a few new in game boards for indie merchants and hunters to announce their needs. If the board deletes any post older than a week by default then you could read it and be assured that the items requested are likely still desired.

[Ravenfeather]

It is possible to accumulate wealth, occupy more than one apartment, contribute a negligible amount to the game economy, contribute a negligible amount to plots and other players, and simultaneously also create issues with other players in your area using NPC shops by flooding it with your stuff (or spamming up all of your shop-related commands at a rate that is 10 times higher than 95% of other players).

That is what we are seeing and that is what we have an issue with.

While I would certainty not endorse or attempt myself to 'flood' shops with massive amounts of goods disrupting other players - as an off-peak player, everything else you just listed is pretty much the only way I can play Arm is as an Indie characters.  Are some of those spamming filling shops offpeakers?

I am also really better off playing an Indie character (a number of players basically told me too some years back when I was expressing frustration at not being able to 'link in' with anyone/anything significant) as player numbers are around 10-15 max on my 'peak hours' during the week.  10-15 is actually really good, its the best its been for off-peakers in my experience over the years I have attempted to play Arm and its why I am again trying to stick it out and have a go.  But ... when I grab a hunk a stone and I try to sell to NPC shops (which is my only choice) guess what?   yup no one wants it.

When I take some unused armor/clothing I dont need anymore to NPC shops (which again is my only choice because its cheap and no PC will want it) again I can not find a NPC shop that will buy.  Maybe, if I work hard and 'stick it out' and manage to branch some crafts I 'will' actually be able to offer something decent to the few PC's around me but its a long way off, a long hill to climb.  

The system as it stands basically forces some of us to do in part some of the very things you have listed that should not be done (which I think people are trying to point out and trying to offer solutions too?), like bulk crafting, apartment sitting and mass selling to NPC shops.  Again, I would try not to 'flood' shops, but I hope I have explained the whole hamster wheel -  

- Action houses would help players off peak provide items to PC's they would otherwise not meet.
- A cycling bazaar of shop keeps as suggested (while it would be a lot of work for staff) would probably help too.
- A similar 'job offer' board with coded 'collect' would also do the same (most would rather provide goods to players/clans than NPC's).
- Greater rewards for making the travel (and risking the very real dangers) with your goods or materials to a different settlement would assist.

I know you are looking at addressing this at the 'twinkish scale' but please keep this in mind while staff consider changes because if any changes make things more restrictive.... ouch!  Essentially, through no fault of mine or the games, I need to rely on the NPC system to fill the gaps and until there are other options I can see the very strong draw for players in my position to spam-fill NPC shops as its the only real way to work on skills/crafts and get by without running out of coin/food/water.

Staff and/or players might be aware of a ton of ways to avoid what I am saying, but even then, I would say its fair to assume that new off peak players wont know - just like I don't know.

[Nyr]

If you're not flooding shops with massive amounts of goods, you're not doing what I'm talking about.  And I checked, you're clocking in at about a fifteenth of what one of the heavy hitters is doing.

[Ravenfeather]

Thanks 

[Ravenfeather]

I should add however, I am rolling a very new PC and relying on the automated jobs quiet heavily which both time consuming and boring (but my choice all the same!).  Chances are when I feel a bit more prepared, have read a bit more widely and I am read to be both brave and bold, I would estimate my count there to likely climb from 1/15th to perhaps 7/15ths...

[Morrolan]

The worst offender is crafting upwards of 500 items in that same time frame.

Ahem. Shitty.

[RogueGunslinger]

Throw them in the arena.



RELEASE THE GAJ!!!!

[Patuk]

offpeak blues

Oh hey you have the same timezone as I do.

I've been noticing this as well though, I have. If I log in during the afternoon in here, all I tend to see is independent rangers/merchants or gemmers. I doubt this is a coincidence. Currently there is very little incentive for an offpeaker to actually go and join a clan, seeing as clans tend not to benefit someone who never actually meets their clanmates. For example, someone who would want to play a bard, a soldier, or a noble house employee, would be left with restrictions on leaving the gates and sometimes even tight schedules to adhere to. This would be fine if there were people to see and things to do on your own in said clan, but for most, it seems like going independent is a lot more preferable.

[BuNutzCola]

Something related to increasing trade, but doing so within the gameworld we have as well.

GMH's:

*Have more than one pc in the Merchant family roles. 2-3 at least per house. Sure, some die/store whatever, but the potential is much greater with more of them.

-One, the agents have someone to compete against (internal conflict within GMH's yay).

-Greatly limit what you'll load up for them. Provide them perhaps with greater access to GMH recipes, and require they gather the materials/employ the crafters they'd wish for the orders they want to fill. This will give greater incentive for said agents to hire more people and buy supplies from independents (which I feel should be one of the largest suppliers to the merchant houses)

Give Agent's a higher stipend with which to accomplish these tasks. An independent -should- want to work for the merchant houses 99% of the time, but the reality is that most of them are more profitable outside the constraints of employment. Crafters are usually on hired on to mastercraft, rather than produce a large amount of the goods an agent sells. Typically the raw materials are often only required when it's some special sekrit project (statues/buildings) and comes down to little outside of "get 150 logs, 50 boulders, 20 dead prositutes"


If possible, I'd love to see this from the raw good shopkeeps, as well:

Instead of

"Sorry, I have too many of those already."

"I have too many of those, but I could give you 5 'sid a piece."

*I also make these suggestions from my experience as a merchant house member several years ago, and honestly haven't had a great deal of current interaction with them. So it's possible this is already the case. But at least for the last year it does seem a rare case you might find a merchant house agent, much less conduct trade with the GMH's regularly*

[Lizzie]

There's really little incentive to join a GMH if your recruit year doesn't provide actual coins for pay. Free food and water and a locker is great, but if you're a ranger, you don't need free food or water, and if you really -need- storage, you can afford a crappy apartment by selling only a few items per RL week to NPC shops. Offering discounts is pointless if you aren't paying your recruits; they can't afford to pay even at a discount if they have zero income.

I don't know if that's changed since I played in a GMH, which wasn't long ago. Or maybe it isn't true for all GMHs. But if it's true, then the incentive to play a rule-breaker, is far more sensible, than playing a rule-abider, in a GMH. As long as the "bosses" of the GMH accept that most of their recruits are going to break the rules in order to afford the discounts they are offered, then it's all good.

[Desertman]

I had a few paragraphs written about how it is silly for Rangers to justify joining a House for financial purposes. But, I deleted them.

Basically, we all know an indy Ranger can make a lot more sid if he doesn't join a House. The only reasons to join a House as a Ranger are if you are new and really can't find your own food and water, you want to experience House roleplay, you need House protection for some reason, or the current House agent/family member is handing out massive bonuses that actually make up for the fact you would normally take a huge financial loss joining said House.

(The latter happens often enough in my experience actually.)

My point is that I am for House wages being adjusted for House members to make those jobs more on par with indy wages, and I mostly play indy pc's, so this isn't a case of me pushing my own agenda.

[Rhyden]

If you're not flooding shops with massive amounts of goods, you're not doing what I'm talking about.  And I checked, you're clocking in at about a fifteenth of what one of the heavy hitters is doing.

I wonder if you could add a coded restriction to these "heavy hitters" or abusers in some way similar to how you said it's done to players who don't realistically roleplay their injuries?

Maybe take away their ability to sell items to NPC shopkeepers? Forcing them to interact and sell to the Pc population? Failing that, maybe for flooding the markets their products (and only theirs, the abuser's) lose significant value to reflect the possibility that nobody is actually buying their bulk?

[Marauder Moe]

As much as it stinks from a realism sense, it might be worth considering some kind of individual limit on how many sales you can make to NPC vendors in a given time frame.  maybe something like 50 coins per RL day (that accumulates up to something like 500) and once you've sold goods that add up to that amount all the vendors stop dealing with you or start offering worse and worse payouts.

[Desertman]

Maybe scaled decreasing gains for selling the same item repeatedly?

You sell one pair of sandcloth gloves, the merchant gives you 40 coins.

You sell a second pair, well he already has a pair he hasn't moved, so, he will give you 30 coins.

A third pair, well shit, the man already has two pairs of them, but he will give you 20 coins anyways.

So on and so forth.

Make it so that selling massive amounts of the same items to the same merchant suddenly becomes much less profitable.


That is just putting a bandaid on the spurting severed artery though. The main issue in my opinion is that a single individual can obtain massive amounts of wealth and that is not a liability in any way to them because that wealth can't be touched by anyone who might do them harm. Why go after them for their massive wealth, even when they have no protection at all as a loner, because you know you can't touch it anyways, no matter what. *shrug*

Make that massive wealth a real liability and suddenly they are spending money to keep that money, which spreads out that wealth, leads to interaction on multiple levels, and in general, not only "fixes" the massive indy wealth problem, but actually turns it into a positive outlet for roleplay on multiple tiers of PC interaction.

[Barzalene]

It makes me sad the the GMH don't have more allure.

[Desertman]

It makes me sad the the GMH don't have more allure.

+1

Any time I have played a hunter in a GMH, which is many times, I always feel like they are begging my scraggly dusty hunter to stay there, instead of my scraggly dusty hunter begging them for the opportunity to be part of their great House.

It should really be the other way around.

[bcw81]

To Maso's point about tools needing to wear out: First tools would need to be easy to buy, as it is, certain tools are impossible to find in the NPC economy.

[Marauder Moe]

Maybe scaled decreasing gains for selling the same item repeatedly?

You sell one pair of sandcloth gloves, the merchant gives you 40 coins.

You sell a second pair, well he already has a pair he hasn't moved, so, he will give you 30 coins.

A third pair, well shit, the man already has two pairs of them, but he will give you 20 coins anyways.

So on and so forth.

Make it so that selling massive amounts of the same items to the same merchant suddenly becomes much less profitable.

Well I thought they already refused to buy if they have 5 in stock.  Diminishing returns wouldn't fix the problem of singular merchants flooding the shops with a certain number each of profitable items.  If you limited such things on a per character basis, though, then it's more fair to other merchants.

That is just putting a bandaid on the spurting severed artery though. The main issue in my opinion is that a single individual can obtain massive amounts of wealth and that is not a liability in any way to them because that wealth can't be touched by anyone who might do them harm. Why go after them for their massive wealth, even when they have no protection at all as a loner, because you know you can't touch it anyways, no matter what. *shrug*

Make that massive wealth a real liability and suddenly they are spending money to keep that money, which spreads out that wealth, leads to interaction on multiple levels, and in general, not only "fixes" the massive indy wealth problem, but actually turns it into a positive outlet for roleplay on multiple tiers of PC interaction.

LOL!  Income tax.  Actually it's not a terrible idea, if there is a way to automatically gauge a PC's income and report it to PC authorities.  Though PC templars tend to be busy enough as it is, I'd hesitate to add tax collection to their duties.

[bcw81]

I would like to see indy merchants who spam sell things to the shops needing their city's proper merchanting pass. I have never once seen those things actually mentioned aside from people high up forcing people down low to buy the passes, then never checking again.

[Riev]

LOL!  Income tax.  Actually it's not a terrible idea, if there is a way to automatically gauge a PC's income and report it to PC authorities.  Though PC templars tend to be busy enough as it is, I'd hesitate to add tax collection to their duties.

That is what the Arm and the Legions are for. Send your Sergeant and his minions after Merchant X, to collect a tithe. Both Allanak and Tuluk have Merchant licenses which, to me, say that whenever the Templarate says you owe them coin, you owe them coin.

Would give some incentive on soldier/burglars to break into the Merchants house and rough up the place if they aren't paying, or to hassle them when they are in public about how untrustworthy they are. I mean, who is the public going to believe? The merchant talking about how rich and powerful he is? Or the soldier that says he's a crackpot.

[Molten Heart]

I bet the worst abusers are dwarves.  At least then they'd be doing something sort of right.

[Desertman]

Well I thought they already refused to buy if they have 5 in stock.  Diminishing returns wouldn't fix the problem of singular merchants flooding the shops with a certain number each of profitable items.  If you limited such things on a per character basis, though, then it's more fair to other merchants.

The difference is one is realistic and one isn't. Diminishing returns would make selling multiple items of the same nature much less profitable while maintaining realism. While putting a OOC induced "hardcap" just "because it is OOC'ly fair to the other guy", is jarring and doesn't make as much IC sense.

I'm for both actually, as I think either/or would be needed, maybe even both at the same time, I just prefer the one that is more realistic.

LOL!  Income tax.  Actually it's not a terrible idea, if there is a way to automatically gauge a PC's income and report it to PC authorities.  Though PC templars tend to be busy enough as it is, I'd hesitate to add tax collection to their duties.

Just having it so that templars can see your wealth and "tax" you only adds a very minor aspect to the concept. This now let's templars become massively rich off of indy merchants, which again isn't a bad idea, but only adds a single tier to the structure.

Making it so that suddenly that massive wealth is obtainable by the playerbase as a whole if they want to do you harm, and you aren't properly protected, that makes it a "playerbase wide" fully tiered from top to bottom concept instead of a "single role concept". (Meaning templar/indy merchant interaction only.)

[Marauder Moe]

Well I thought they already refused to buy if they have 5 in stock.  Diminishing returns wouldn't fix the problem of singular merchants flooding the shops with a certain number each of profitable items.  If you limited such things on a per character basis, though, then it's more fair to other merchants.

The difference is one is realistic and one isn't. Diminishing returns would make selling multiple items of the same nature much less profitable while maintaining realism. While putting a OOC induced "hardcap" just "because it is OOC'ly fair to the other guy", is jarring and doesn't make as much IC sense.

Are you talking individual soft caps?  That works too.  Though, I readily admitted that individual caps/limits buggers realism.

LOL!  Income tax.  Actually it's not a terrible idea, if there is a way to automatically gauge a PC's income and report it to PC authorities.  Though PC templars tend to be busy enough as it is, I'd hesitate to add tax collection to their duties.

Just having it so that templars can see your wealth and "tax" you only adds a very minor aspect to the concept. This now let's templars become massively rich off of indy merchants, which again isn't a bad idea, but only adds a single tier to the structure.

Making it so that suddenly that massive wealth is obtainable by the playerbase as a whole if they want to do you harm, and you aren't properly protected, that makes it a "playerbase wide" fully tiered from top to bottom concept instead of a "single role concept". (Meaning templar/indy merchant interaction only.)

It's tricky, though.  If you're talking about somehow encouraging super-rich indies to spread the wealth around with bribes, gifts, tips, and general partying all the time, well, that might be fun for a while but it also generates real power.  Give me 2000 coins per RL week and before too long I could probably own the entire PC population of a city.

[Twilight]

Wealth that doesn't disappear from the economy, with the death of a player, adds just that much more skewing to the economy, not less.

[Marauder Moe]

Armageddon doesn't have a PC economy that functions in that sort of flow model.  We never will.