Mounts, Stabling Fees, and You (When Banking Outrage Just Isn't Enough)

[Taven]

So this is from RAT:

I wonder if one of the economic changes will be mount stabling fees.

Like how inix supposedly are super expensive to keep...

Inix                                                            (Animal Life)

   These large lizards are capable of carrying even half-giants, albeit
under duress. Plodding slowly along, they have voracious appetites, and
usually only the rich, or those living in the green lands of the far North,
can afford to keep them. They have developed a protective shell that grows
across their backs, and they have a tough hide, both useful and sought-after
as raw materials.

...but in reality, they only cost like 20 coins anywhere.


Wouldn't it make sense if inix cost a lot more to keep in the south?

Always wanted to see this changed to take into account not only the type of mount but also how long it has been in the stables.

A beetle in for < 5 RL days......20 coins.
A inix in for < 5 RL days....40 coins


A beetle in for 5 - 10 RL days.....40 coins
A inix in for 5 - 10 RL days.....80 coins


A beetle in for 10 - 20  RL days....80 coins
A inix in for 10 - 20 RL days....160 coins


A beetle in for > 20 RL days.....200 coins
A inix in for > 20 RL days.....250 coins


Once you go over 20 RL days, you pay a flat fee to get your mount out. It maxes out to keep it from getting stupid expensive.

Of course you would get a talk script when you offer the ticket.

"You don't have enough money! This inix has been in my stable for a long time and they cost a lot to feed! Come back with more money!".

Or whatever.

Again, this hits casual players far harder than it does the people who play 3 hours every day.

Who's to say you haven't been virtually taking that mount out of the stables with your virtual money and making virtual coin?

Different fees for different animals, now that I could see. 10 for an erdlu, 15 for a sunback, 20 for a beetle, 40 for an inix.

That's a good point. I would be happy to see both.

So there's really three different possible changes:

• Flat fee increase (increase for each time you rent your inix or mount depending on type and location)
• Time-based fees (you stable for x days, it incurs y fee to get it out again)
• Rent-based system (you pay a fee on leaving your mount, which covers x days, and must pay again if it's been longer -- Think similar to how apartments work)

Flat Fee Increase

Flat fee increase is just like it sounds. Depending on the type of mount you have and where you stable it, it can cost more to get it back.

Example:

Mount		Morin's		Luirs		Allanak		Storm
Inix		30 coins		35 coins		40 coins		50 coins

Time-Based Fees

Basically, the longer you keep a mount in a spot, the more expensive it's going to be. I also made this place-dependent by mount type, for added complexity.

Mount		Morin's for x weeks		Luirs for x weeks		Allanak for x weeks		Storm for x weeks
Inix		20*x coins		35*x coins		40*x coins		50*x coins
Beetle		30*x coins		20*x coins		10*x coins (minimum 20 coins)		10*x coins (minimum 20 coins)

So basically, if you take your inix out every day, you're only paying a fee of say, 20 coins down in Morin's. But if you don't play for a RL week, that's 20*7, which will be 140 coins. As mentioned before, this is going to punish people who don't play every day. Of course, the cost could also be reduced for mounts native to an area. Keeping a beetle in Allanak isn't going to be nearly as expensive as keeping an inix, because an inix eats a heck of a lot more.

I'm not really sure the examples here make sense for cost, but you can get an idea of how this would work. There should also be a maximum fee limit, as suggested way above.


Rent-Based Stabling

Basically, instead of having a stabling fee every time you put a mount in and out, you're renting a stall, instead. So it would work similarly to apartments, in that you pay a fee upfront, and have that stall for x days. When you get closed to running out of time, the stable master lets you know. The downside to this is that I don't think this would work on its own, because stables are about travelling. Unless you're ALWAYS stabling just in Allanak or just in Morin's, odds are you're going to want to stow your mount elsewhere. However, it could be of use to people who want to rent a mount long-term, maybe.

Generally it probably has to be better thought out in combinations with other options.

Mount		Morin's for RL week period		Luirs for RL week period		Allanak for RL week period		Storm for RL weeks
Inix		400 coins		450 coins		550 coins		600 coins
Beetle		400 coins		350 coins		300 coins		250 coins

(Also note that listed coin examples are examples, rather then something I'm saying makes the most sense. Someone else may have a better idea of pricing.)


On Clans

A lot of clans have their own stabling, which could cut down on fees. In addition, they're just plain richer. A Kadian who keeps an inix, regardless of location, probably would be charged less then an independent hunter. Why? Because the House is covering a lot of the cost, or in general has enough business with a stable to keep overall fees lower. The same would probably be true for other GMH and clans as applicable.

[BadSkeelz]

I'd be alright with this, especially for the "expensive to feed" inix:

Flat Fee Increase

Flat fee increase is just like it sounds. Depending on the type of mount you have and where you stable it, it can cost more to get it back.

Example:

Mount		Morin's		Luirs		Allanak		Storm
Inix		30 coins		35 coins		40 coins		50 coins

Everything else sounds needlessly complicated and horrifically expensive.

I want to unstable my mount so I can go charge gith and feed people to them. Making it more complicated and expensive only benefits those players with too much time and sids on their hands.

edit: Nice tabling by the way.

[bardlyone]

I don't back any changes.

However it changes, people will bitch. Just like they're doing now. Only it will take time and not really add anything.

Holy shit you people are really reading the banking changes thread, right?

Because that's almost assuredly how it's gonna turn out.

Remember that while voting for whatever bullshit you support.

[BadSkeelz]

If you think the banking change reaction is bad you should go back and read the rape threads.

[Taven]

Holy shit you people are really reading the banking changes thread, right?

I believe the answer to your question is in the title of this thread. 

[lostinspace]

I'd be fine with flat fee increases based on mount type, leave beetle at 20, make inix 40, ox 30, etc. I am against the weekly scenario, because I have had characters that would log in only occasionally (with all of 30 coins to his name) and if that character suddenly lost access to their mount, they'd be pretty boned. Those days involved taking the mount from the stables, and riding out until I had enough coins to stable again, and as soon as that number becomes a moving target, I'm against it.

[nauta]

I'd be fine with flat fee increases based on mount type, leave beetle at 20, make inix 40, ox 30, etc. I am against the weekly scenario, because I have had characters that would log in only occasionally (with all of 30 coins to his name) and if that character suddenly lost access to their mount, they'd be pretty boned. Those days involved taking the mount from the stables, and riding out until I had enough coins to stable again, and as soon as that number becomes a moving target, I'm against it.

I love that sweet spot in an early outdoors PC's career where you can't hardly make ends meet: no beetle, then a beetle and no money for stabling.  That sweet spot doesn't last long though, because eventually you wake up with skills, a big bag of mount tickets, loads of sid, etc. etc.

I wonder if a solution would be to make skill progression slower.  So far my solution has been to just die.

[Saellyn]

I'd be fine with flat fee increases based on mount type, leave beetle at 20, make inix 40, ox 30, etc. I am against the weekly scenario, because I have had characters that would log in only occasionally (with all of 30 coins to his name) and if that character suddenly lost access to their mount, they'd be pretty boned. Those days involved taking the mount from the stables, and riding out until I had enough coins to stable again, and as soon as that number becomes a moving target, I'm against it.

I love that sweet spot in an early outdoors PC's career where you can't hardly make ends meet: no beetle, then a beetle and no money for stabling.  That sweet spot doesn't last long though, because eventually you wake up with skills, a big bag of mount tickets, loads of sid, etc. etc.

I wonder if a solution would be to make skill progression slower.  So far my solution has been to just die.

What the fuck are you playing, a pickpocket robbing every hunter you see? I've NEVER had more than two tickets at a time ever. Usually I have just the one.

[valeria]

Byn sergeant maybe.  I've never seen one with fewer than a zillion mount tickets.

[BadSkeelz]

Any sort of military sergeant or leader is likely going to end up with at least 4 or 5 spares (not including the mount they keep in each stable, so they can ride out quickly from either end of the city). And that's just the ones for your home base; my AoD lieutenant probably had over a dozen from across the Known.

For indie rangers, if you can tame a mount, and you see a wild mount, there's little reason not to grab it. It can be stabled forever for a pittance and sold for meat or newbie coin.

[nauta]

It's been a year, and they're all dead: it was actually some weird dwarf with a fetish for collecting them who just handed the bag to me one day.  We were both working on the skimmer together or something.  It must've had twenty or thirty tickets in the bag.

But that's not my point!

[BadSkeelz]

It's been a year, and they're all dead: it was actually some weird dwarf with a fetish for collecting them who just handed the bag to me one day.  We were both working on the skimmer together or something.  It must've had twenty or thirty tickets in the bag.

But that's not my point!

Actually, it kind of is: there's little reason to change or tweak the code (especially to make things harder) if players would just act a bit more reasonable. Stabling 30 mounts for a single guy is borderline code abuse, in my opinion. Don't want to be awash with coins/tickets/mudsex partners? Stop trying so hard and vary up your play.

[Marauder Moe]

So I always kinda considered two possibilities for how stables worked virtually:

1) It's not the same animal each time.  By "renting" an animal, you're actually paying up-front into a service that lets you cheaply borrow a mount of the same make and model.

2) While you're logged off, your character is virtually paying for stabling services with virtual money and/or personally tending to the animal themselves.

I prefer the latter explanation because it's nice for your character to have a personal relationship with their mount.  (Also, some of my characters have owned very rare mounts that can't be purchased.)


Anyway, maybe the bulk of the expense and difficulties of owning a large animal are best kept in the virtual realm, just like pooping and visiting your mother currently are.

[Alesan]

So I always kinda considered two possibilities for how stables worked virtually:

1) It's not the same animal each time.  By "renting" an animal, you're actually paying up-front into a service that lets you cheaply borrow a mount of the same make and model.

2) While you're logged off, your character is virtually paying for stabling services with virtual money and/or personally tending to the animal themselves.

I prefer the latter explanation because it's nice for your character to have a personal relationship with their mount.  (Also, some of my characters have owned very rare mounts that can't be purchased.)

Anyway, maybe the bulk of the expense and difficulties of owning a large animal are best kept in the virtual realm, just like pooping and visiting your mother currently are.

I always thought #1 sounded stupid. I like #2. I also like a flat fee based on the type of mount you're stabling, not a rent based fee.

[Taven]

Nearly 100% of the people who support a fee support a flat fee increase.

I'm curious about people that don't want an increase at all. Why don't you want an increase?

I'd also be curious on what guilds people voting are playing. Some guilds use mounts more then others, generally speaking.

[The Silence of the Erdlus]

I play mostly merchants and magickers and most of those are indie and I want an excuse not to buy a damn inix. (flat fee supporter)

[bardlyone]

I'm not in favor of it because I don't believe that if something like that is implemented, it will be done in a way that is satisfactory to the majority of the people advocating for it, thus resulting in nothing but complaints and wasted time while making another 'coin sink' that does nothing to add new content and instead just enforces the need to make more coins.

Not to sound cynical but, again, look back at the banking thread.

If something is implemented and it's not what's actually wanted (a concensus being impossible to be reached). It's already one way. I don't find the way that it works to be objectionable.

And since you asked about class: merchant.

[Eyeball]

I remember the consensus as being that the beasts are put to work while they're in the stables. They earn their feed.

[musashi]

I wouldn't mind a time based fee system or a rent base fee but I think it would need to do something to take into account people with low play times so as not to unfairly burden them.

[Case]

I support increases for animals that are non native to the city they're in / big / eat a lot, and possibly limited tickets per person, but that's about it.

And having endurance costs on riding a mount, low, but present (and that's because people seem to treat the wilderness as small and easy to travel). IMO, the masters of wilderness travel should be delves and wagons, not people with inixes (in the desert no less).

[Suhuy]

However it changes, people will bitch. Just like they're doing now. Only it will take time and not really add anything.

I don't think there is a single player who is upset that they are now being charged to use the banks. I think they're upset at the current rate of the fee. Additionally, merchants and nobles receive no discount and are essentially encouraged to hide their money in their mattresses until such a time as additional code has been implemented to reflect the reality of the situation. What this boils down to is the equivalent of Gucci stating that they do not want business from the rich and powerful, only from the meek and the poor.

Sometimes a suspension of disbelief is required due to the nature of the game. Is it fair to charge a player more for renting their inix simply because they cannot play the game as often as someone else? Would it add any more than it is detracting by implementing such a code? The pros and cons need to be carefully weighed before passing judgement, in my opinion.

[valeria]

I'd like to see non-native mounts charged more, and larger mounts charged more, on a flat-fee basis.  My reason for this is because those mounts would take up more space and resources, and because I'd like to see more people using some of the smaller mounts instead of everyone defaulting to inix all the time.

I wouldn't support a rent-based system because a lot of low playtimes people that I've known tend to gravitate toward the more solo-type rangerish-type roles.  I feel like those people are punished enough with the way apartment rents work.  Any timer that continues to tick while you're logged out is going to negatively affect low playtimes people, and I'd rather not give them more reason to not play than they already have.

[flurry]

I know the numbers given up the thread were arbitrary, but I start with the idea that you can't charge more in stabling than it costs to buy a new mount. 

In all seriousness, I don't see how anything other than a flat fee is going to work for casual players. I kind of like the idea of different amounts for different kinds of mounts, though.

[Revenant]

I don't get banking fee outrage, considering people were bitching about coin being worthless not that long ago. The truth is, coin is worthless. Try offering coin to a rich character who is making you make an impossible choice, and you'll see. The problem comes in where adjustments increase the divide between rich and poor characters, suddenly, even if you know a rich character, or could do some other kind of work, your efforts don't matter, because coin doesn't matter to the other player. There's no opportunity for negotiation, giving them coin, saving them coin, it doesn't matter in the slightest.

[Revenant]

Sorry for the double post, but I'd find it highly amusing if Nenyuk just took the money and ran.