NPC Shop Crying Thread

[Revenant]

Yes, the markets in Storm and Luir's could use some serious beefing up. Seems like someone nerfed the market in Luir's, I guess because, it's not supposed to be a place to stay? Well, kind of sucks, can't get into outpost life unless you have a particular set of unmentioned craft skills.

Storm's market is shot to pieces. The merchants buy for high prices, but have little coin. Cenyr I've visited a few times, but never really got any clue how existence was supposed to be sustainable there.

Blackwing buys some things, for usually hideously marked down prices. Likely not a place you're supposed to stay in long unless you weasel yourself in REAL good with the d-elfs. I don't even think they have a water seller, could be wrong, though.

[catchall]

A lot of things would be improved immediately and naturally by the idea many have endorsed so far -- lifting item buy limits and implement a diminishing sale price as inventory grows, and making all shops save.  The VNPC buy rate should probably also be adjusted upward with maybe a slightly more sophisticated algorithm to chose the item.

That way if there really are items that are too common and too easy to make money on, for whatever reason, people will sell them to the market until the price falls to where it's no longer worth their time.  And the price will remain permanently depressed as long as people are still selling in large quantities.  That way, even if there is some common leaf that normally sells for 200 sid a piece, you could easily end up in a situation where it rarely sells for more than 10 sid, and the price stays that way because grebber after grebber makes the same decision--better to get some coin than no coin.  This is far better than a 5-item max where you wait for one of the five items to be sold off (and 4 or 5 items are both "a few," so the task is extra-tedious), and then go sell for 200 sid if your timing is good, or make nothing if your timing is off.  The current system rewards luck and tedium.  With a dynamic pricing system, players have meaningful choices -- sell the goods here and now, try transporting them elsewhere, or wait and hope prices rise again.

I'm not trying to get all "invisible hand of the market" here, but a system like this self-corrects for a lot of the things that bother us.  I'm a bit leery of allowing the sale price to players to drop too much with growing inventory, lest new PCs log in to a flooded market and fully outfit themselves with 30 sid or something, but there would be definite benefits to letting the price drop as well, maybe with a minimum of 20-50% of the normal selling price or so.  If price can drop, than those flooded shops become a business opportunity.  If you are in a crowded area of the world where shops are always full, you can ease that pressure by buying up goods and transporting them somewhere they are in demand, making a profit for yourself.  Instead of a staffer just manually deciding "Wood should fetch a good price in Allanak," and setting some values accordingly, the game would actually create trade routes automatically in response to player activity.  Abundant items would actually be abundant and be treated as abundant for good in-game reasons.  Merchants and traders would have a different and changing economic landscape to interact with every day, and would have more opportunities to respond intelligently to market trends.

[RogueGunslinger]

I'm going to start murdering shopkeepers.

[Desertman]

I don't think we want a system in place where the shopkeepers save permanently and lower their prices based on inventory and start dictating the overall economy of items in general.

Some items need to have artificially inflated values, and some need to be artificially depressed to reflect the realism the world is shooting for.

We all know that meat is easy to get in game. It's very easy to get. Anyone can go get so much of it they literally could feed ten families. It's not hard.

What happens to the perception that, "The world is harsh and people are starving and this is a super hardcore setting in terms of survival.", when the grocers in all of the towns are selling really nice meat for 4 coins a piece because the market has been deflated by every hunter in the game selling them dozens of the same meat?

And that's just one example.

I don't want to see NPC shopkeepers change their value for things based on PC supply. Especially not saved between reboots. That has the potential to make a lot of things become very "out of whack" when stacked against the documentation based on the actions of the comparatively (compared to the entire population of the world) tiny number of PC's in the game.

[Lizzie]

Agreed with Desertman. Also, plugging (again) my idea: to limit the quantity of items sold TO NPCs per PC, rather than per shopkeeper. Amos has 20 shards of flint worth 10 sids each, 54 lavender silk dresses worth 190 sids each, 18 tregil-carved wooden chests worth 400 sids each, 9 pairs of black silk gloves worth 140 sids each, and 492 gith cloaks worth 5 sids each.

There are 2 shopkeepers who will actually buy the cloaks (which are pocketed) and chests (which are containers).
There are 4 stonebuyers.
There are 3 clothing buyers, but only 2 of them buy silken goods.

Anything that nets the seller more than 200 sids each, is limited to one per seller per shop. All other items are limited at 5 per seller, per shop.

So: Amos has max haggle. He *could* theoretically sell those dresses for 280 sids each. But then he'd only be able to sell 2 of them, in total, because of the net max. So he sells for what the shopkeeper offers: 190 sids each. And he can now sell 5 to shop 1, and 5 to shop 2. Ten total, instead of two at the haggled price. Same with the chests - he can either low-sell for 199 sids each and then sell 10 of them, or he can sell just two; one to each shop, at 800 sids total.

This would be true for EVERYONE who sells to NPC shops, with clan-based exceptions (Kadian not allowed to sell to Kadian shops, or whatever IC rules exist).

In this way, there is no rush for reboot, no one has to wait a RL month to sell just one garnet to the rock-seller because someone else happens to always be there when he "sells to passersby," thus making it possible for the NPC to buy just one more garnet til either someone else buys a garnet or game reset.

It also makes people decide HOW they want to run their transactions, and perhaps consider grebbing/skinning/looting a little more prudently, because stockpiling still won't net much, and accepting less coin will encourage more player-to-player commerce.

[chuci]

Sounds sorta doable until you run into

"Sorry, I only buy two feathers from each person."

Same issue exists with 5-item limits, of course. I have a feeling that would have changed by now if it were easy to code.

What we need is more raw goods traders. Especially traders who buy wood and hides. Allanak should pay top dollar for wood products.

We also need to increase the rate at which VNPCs buy products, to keep up with the increased economic pressure of removing an entire market (Tuluk) from play.

Up the frequency with which people can sell things, lower the profits.

[Lizzie]

Sounds sorta doable until you run into

"Sorry, I only buy two feathers from each person."

Same issue exists with 5-item limits, of course. I have a feeling that would have changed by now if it were easy to code.

What we need is more raw goods traders. Especially traders who buy wood and hides. Allanak should pay top dollar for wood products.

We also need to increase the rate at which VNPCs buy products, to keep up with the increased economic pressure of removing an entire market (Tuluk) from play.

Up the frequency with which people can sell things, lower the profits.

You change the message: "I don't need any more of that right now." Pretty much like how it is already. There's playability, believability, and realism. I put those in that order because that's how I feel the priority should be. The system as it is right now, is only playable for some. It isn't playable at all for others. It isn't realistic at all, and it's not all that believable. Make the function of NPC selling more *playable* and tweak it for believability. Realism has no place in a fantasy world, so it's a moot point

Your idea also hurts the new player and rewards the veteran. The new player doesn't know how to stockpile. It also rewards the person who needs the coins the least, and punishes the one who needs it the most. The guy who only HAS one hide - can now suffer the consequences of a glut in the market caused by the guy with 10 hides.

[chuci]

I think both ideas can coexist peacefully, but only 2 per of any item seems too low.

[Desertman]

I don't like the idea of shopkeepers only buying a certain amount from certain people.

It doesn't make sense that in Zalanthas a shopkeeper would only buy "X amount of resource from Y individual because.", "I want to make sure everyone gets their fair share.".

They would buy on a first come first serve basis, and in general, I prefer it that way. It creates a competition.

What this game needs is more reason for conflict and economic competition, not more code designed to create a system where everyone, "Gets to sell equally and fairly and don't have to compete with each other.".

But, that's just my personal preference.

The guy with 10 hides worked harder. Got there first. He deserves to make the money. The guy with his 1 hide needs to work for the guy with 10 hides. Why? Because the guy with 10 hides is better. If the guy with 1 hide doesn't like it, he should get rid of the guy with 10 hides or stop crying. It's Zalanthas. (My mindset.)

[Revenant]

I don't like the idea of shopkeepers only buying a certain amount from certain people.

It doesn't make sense that in Zalanthas a shopkeeper would only buy "X amount of resource from Y individual because.", "I want to make sure everyone gets their fair share.".

They would buy on a first come first serve basis, and in general, I prefer it that way. It creates a competition.

What this game needs is more reason for conflict and economic competition, not more code designed to create a system where everyone, "Gets to sell equally and fairly and don't have to compete with each other.".

But, that's just my personal preference.

The guy with 10 hides worked harder. Got there first. He deserves to make the money. The guy with his 1 hide needs to work for the guy with 10 hides. Why? Because the guy with 10 hides is better. If the guy with 1 hide doesn't like it, he should get rid of the guy with 10 hides or stop crying. It's Zalanthas. (My mindset.)

Armageddon is not a meritocracy (outside certain tribes).

[Desertman]

I don't like the idea of shopkeepers only buying a certain amount from certain people.

It doesn't make sense that in Zalanthas a shopkeeper would only buy "X amount of resource from Y individual because.", "I want to make sure everyone gets their fair share.".

They would buy on a first come first serve basis, and in general, I prefer it that way. It creates a competition.

What this game needs is more reason for conflict and economic competition, not more code designed to create a system where everyone, "Gets to sell equally and fairly and don't have to compete with each other.".

But, that's just my personal preference.

The guy with 10 hides worked harder. Got there first. He deserves to make the money. The guy with his 1 hide needs to work for the guy with 10 hides. Why? Because the guy with 10 hides is better. If the guy with 1 hide doesn't like it, he should get rid of the guy with 10 hides or stop crying. It's Zalanthas. (My mindset.)

Armageddon is not a meritocracy (outside certain tribes).

Armageddon is not. Zalanthas is, with the exception of certain Houses and tribes.

Those who are the most skilled, and the most fit for survival rule and dominate. Those who are not, get the scraps.

I like it that way.

(Also, I had to look up meritocracy. It is basically the idea that those who are the smartest/most skilled/most capable succeed right?)

[Revenant]

I don't like the idea of shopkeepers only buying a certain amount from certain people.

It doesn't make sense that in Zalanthas a shopkeeper would only buy "X amount of resource from Y individual because.", "I want to make sure everyone gets their fair share.".

They would buy on a first come first serve basis, and in general, I prefer it that way. It creates a competition.

What this game needs is more reason for conflict and economic competition, not more code designed to create a system where everyone, "Gets to sell equally and fairly and don't have to compete with each other.".

But, that's just my personal preference.

The guy with 10 hides worked harder. Got there first. He deserves to make the money. The guy with his 1 hide needs to work for the guy with 10 hides. Why? Because the guy with 10 hides is better. If the guy with 1 hide doesn't like it, he should get rid of the guy with 10 hides or stop crying. It's Zalanthas. (My mindset.)

Armageddon is not a meritocracy (outside certain tribes).

Armageddon is not. Zalanthas is, with the exception of certain Houses and tribes.

Those who are the most skilled, and the most fit for survival rule and dominate. Those who are not, get the scraps.

When's the last time you saw a sponsored role? Some of these characters would be utterly demolished if  they didn't have a priveleged family name.

EDIT: Further, aides. Yuck. Instant immunity to near everything, privilege to extend that to others. It's a mess of crap.

[Desertman]

I don't like the idea of shopkeepers only buying a certain amount from certain people.

It doesn't make sense that in Zalanthas a shopkeeper would only buy "X amount of resource from Y individual because.", "I want to make sure everyone gets their fair share.".

They would buy on a first come first serve basis, and in general, I prefer it that way. It creates a competition.

What this game needs is more reason for conflict and economic competition, not more code designed to create a system where everyone, "Gets to sell equally and fairly and don't have to compete with each other.".

But, that's just my personal preference.

The guy with 10 hides worked harder. Got there first. He deserves to make the money. The guy with his 1 hide needs to work for the guy with 10 hides. Why? Because the guy with 10 hides is better. If the guy with 1 hide doesn't like it, he should get rid of the guy with 10 hides or stop crying. It's Zalanthas. (My mindset.)

Armageddon is not a meritocracy (outside certain tribes).

Armageddon is not. Zalanthas is, with the exception of certain Houses and tribes.

Those who are the most skilled, and the most fit for survival rule and dominate. Those who are not, get the scraps.

When's the last time you saw a sponsored role? Some of these characters would be utterly demolished if  they didn't have a priveleged family name.

I thought I covered that with the bolded part?

[Nyr]

Yes, the markets in Storm and Luir's could use some serious beefing up.

This is something that should happen over time.  A more correct analysis would be "the markets in Storm and Luir's could use staff review seeing as how Tuluk has been closed for PC play."

Seems like someone nerfed the market in Luir's

Never ascribe to active change that which can just as easily be anecdotal or the result of other changes--such as the above, what with closing a city-state for play.

A bunch of specific stuff

I've edited that out, you'd benefit from bugging, typoing, or idea'ing these things in game (specifically if you have behavior you would expect to happen, but it does not happen that way).

Storm's market is shot to pieces.

I've edited out some of the other stuff you've mentioned here because it's also specific in-game stuff, but once again, you can bug/typo/idea these in-game.  Expect to be patient about it.  We DO want to make things better in the outpost areas (see the discussion about that when we closed Tuluk), but we'd rather do a larger chunk of several things at once rather than one or two tweaks.  

Cenyr I've visited a few times, but never really got any clue how existence was supposed to be sustainable there.

It isn't supposed to be sustainable for players.  If you're a PC, you are 99% likely to be an outsider to this area.

Blackwing buys some things, for usually hideously marked down prices. Likely not a place you're supposed to stay in long unless you weasel yourself in REAL good with the d-elfs. I don't even think they have a water seller, could be wrong, though.

While Blackwing Outpost might see changes, you'll likely sooner see changes to more well-established enclaves and outposts rather than this one that is much more elven-centric.

[Desertman]

I always liked the way Blackwing felt both in terms of how it functions for tribal elves and how it functions for outsiders. I feel the economy is reflected very realistically there in my opinion.

I like the place though. I would like to see a few more concepts in game in there that would promote more travel to the outpost. I'm not sure how to accomplish that. I think it would be good for both outsiders, and the elves that call the area home as well though.

A reason for groups to make trips there from time to time so that the elves get to interact with the groups, if they choose to, and the groups have more of a reason to interact with the elves.

[KankWhisperer]

I still like the save shopkeepers idea.

However in my mind only the buy price would be significantly affected by supply.

If inventory =< 5, buy price = normal.
else
buy price = normal * 5 / inventory

Likely some min that's normal / 50?
If normal < 1 then isn't interested.
Increased number of items virtually sold.

Sell price would not be affected by inventory. Or if it did you could have it on a different scale like 100 items drops it 1%.

I also had proposed wandering merchants remain as is.

[Revenant]

Whoops! Sorry to post something that needed so much editing, I'll be more careful in the future. Good to know these things. I have bugged and idead a couple things today or yesterday that I thought would be neat. Thanks for the response, Nyr.

[Chettaman]

Save shop keepers.
Seriously, you guys. That's /all/ that needs to be done.

The shop keepers sell their goods. I'll say it over and over again. They sell their goods. They do it so much that they make profit. You sold them a leaf for 200 coins. They're selling it for 575. ... they're SELLING IT FOR 575 coins!!
-- Yes. After they've sold it you can sell just /one/ more leaf. But they can sell something else now.
-- No. You can't sell more than /one/ more leaf. BUT YOU CAN SELL SOMETHING ELSE NOW.

If you stand around a shop keeper enough you'll notice they get rid of their goods at a pretty good rate.
This;
-- still has people competing to sell things.
-- still gives the shop keepers the ability to buy sold goods.
-- doesn't, and I'm sorry, give you the ability to get rid of all of the stuff you have stock piled because you're a hoarder and a penny-pincher. The simple solution to having all of that stuff stockpiled is to use it or lose it. You penny pincher. Use it or lose it!

Having merchants save their goods will save this economy and even make it more realistic, obviously.

making merchants buy an infinite amount:
--Isn't a terribly bad idea if the reboot will make everything go back to Merchant #1030 having 1000 coins.
-- Combining it /with/ saving merchants will completely destroy the market because they /won't/ reboot back to having 1000 coins and they will have all the items that had previously. Which means the number of things they buy will constantly be worth 1 coin or some such.
-- My suggestion for having merchants buy infinitely /and/ save is to make them sell their own goods at an increased rate. But this would make it difficult if a merchant were selling a badass shield and you were looking at it for like 10 minutes because that shield and your amount of coins... you're a haggler or something... you're making a decision is what I'm saying. If you took too long that shield would be gone for good. It's not that bad of an idea. But I like simply saving merchants way more.

Reboot = Sold goods:
-- What if the reboot caused all of the items the shop keeper bought... to sell and generate actual coins for the shop keeper /after/ the reboot?

[chuci]

re: that last idea - If you think the shopkeep rush is bad NOW....

[Revenant]

I hate using vendors and strongly prefer the player economy. It's essential to use vendors, however, if you're playing guild merchant.