Make NPC merchant limits per-player not per-merchant

[MeTekillot]

Per the coins a merchant has in stock, set a player's weekly (RL?) or per-reboot income based on the player in particular, not on how many coins that merchant gets loaded up with and supplied with from sales. This cap could be adjusted based on the player's clan status and maybe their haggle skill.

This would cause Nobles and Merchant House motherfuckers to be the source of the fuck-you levels of money, rather than That Thing You Can Forage For 900 Coins A Pop and This Week's Half-Giant Victim Ankheg. People would prioritize selling to PC merchants and trading with PCs.

RICH INDIES UP AGAINST THE WALL
MAKE ARM'S ECONOMY A STRUGGLE AGAIN

[mansa]

I prefer the method of removing the 'only buys 5 of an item' and making it more of a supply/demand type of market.

Merchant buys the first item at 100%, then the second at 90%, the third at 75%, the fifth at 50%, the 10th at 25%.

[MeTekillot]

I feel like that'd make the monster-money-machine-indie problem worse, not better.

[MatisseOrOtherwise]

This is an awful idea that would completely rework the entire balance of the games economics and leave any and all indie merchants to have absolutely no fun. And would also lead to rapid, heavy inflation and the devaluing of the average coin.

Besides, indie merchants would just get about this by having their buddies sell stuff to that merchant somehow. There would be a way of making it IC. And if you're going to ban all "selling on behalf of another person", congrats, you've actually broken GMHs and how crafters and merchants coexist.

I agree that the random ass forage stuff selling for 900 a pop is a bit OP however, and that does need reworking - perhaps if staff notice a non-crafted item being sold MANY times over weeks of play, that merchant can start refusing that item, stating something like "I've already got dozens of those in the back. Come back in a week or so." to encourage variety.

I remember something similar happening over a year ago IRL - a certain skinning item was ""rare"" up north until that point and had always sold for ### coins, but after a long while of people just carting up whole cratefuls of that item to sell for exorbitant profit, the price was cut by about 5/6ths, because hey, it's not so rare anymore.

[MatisseOrOtherwise]

I prefer the method of removing the 'only buys 5 of an item' and making it more of a supply/demand type of market.

Merchant buys the first item at 100%, then the second at 90%, the third at 75%, the fifth at 50%, the 10th at 25%.

This would worsen the issue of people taking high value items directly to the merchants on reset, since there are many items easily foraged or found or made that sell for THOUSANDS each - and getting good profit up to 8 pieces (100% on the first even!!) Would just make them way more potent than before.

I think how it works currently is a bit janky, but needs polishing and refining, not replacing - the alternatives seem worse.

[daughterofauset]

Considering that many of those items are gemstones of some sort or other, I don't think knocking down their worth by some great amount would make IC sense. There is a reason that the people who own diamond mines that produce IRL make bank. Now, what might be more fun as a way of handling it, might be tasking gmhs with warring over the productive mines - even Salarr and Kurac make stuff with bling time to time so no reason Kadius would have the only interest, even if they might realistically have the most interest. From there? Maybe the winning party gets x or y room gated off and an NPC with a bag and script that will only pay a dirt amount for item but buys more than five (ala the old NPC in Tuluk at the cotton field gates who you could sell cotton to). Dunno, but at least for gemstones, their IC worth makes sense and if someone wants to make it less available, there are plots that could be pursued IC that might work toward that, as suggested.

[MatisseOrOtherwise]

Considering that many of those items are gemstones of some sort or other, I don't think knocking down their worth by some great amount would make IC sense. There is a reason that the people who own diamond mines that produce IRL make bank. Now, what might be more fun as a way of handling it, might be tasking gmhs with warring over the productive mines - even Salarr and Kurac make stuff with bling time to time so no reason Kadius would have the only interest, even if they might realistically have the most interest. From there? Maybe the winning party gets x or y room gated off and an NPC with a bag and script that will only pay a dirt amount for item but buys more than five (ala the old NPC in Tuluk at the cotton field gates who you could sell cotton to). Dunno, but at least for gemstones, their IC worth makes sense and if someone wants to make it less available, there are plots that could be pursued IC that might work toward that, as suggested.

Yknow what, I like this idea. It sounds like it'll take work, though, and I doubt staff will be wholly on board. But it would be a good way of simultaneously controlling the flow, offering lucrative work to brave Indies unafraid of gith and anakore, and increasing PLOTS™.

[Synthesis]

It seems like the problem is people not having anything useful to do with all that 'sid.

[Lizzie]

It seems like the problem is people not having anything useful to do with all that 'sid.

need moar teefs


Meanwhile, I'll regurgitate my tired old idea from over a decade ago which I still think is a great idea:

Make it so any given merchant will buy "x" amount of whatever he buys, from each PC, within "y" window of time.

Maybe he'll only buy "2 of each." But it's 2 of each from EACH PLAYER PER RL DAY rather than 2 of each, no matter whether it's one person bringing it in or two.

Soon as you offload your max that day, you're shut off til the next day. Or the next two days. Or for a RL 24-hour period. It could be configured however it will work best.

What this also means:

I can bring 2 agafari branches to the wood-buying guy. I'll get 20 sids for the pair. I can't bring in any more than 2 of those branches til tomorrow. But I can bring two cunyati branches, and get 28 sids for those two. And I can also bring in 2 long wooden poles. And 2 short wooden poles. And 2 wheel spokes, or whatever else that guy buys. I can also go down the street to the random-product-buying guy, and probably unload another 2 branches to him as well.

And - so can everyone else. Everyone has the same opportunity to sell the same stuff, for the same duration, and no one gets locked out just because twink-grebber #479 filled the merchant up and now the merchant doesn't have sids anymore, and already has 5 of each.

[MeTekillot]

But then everyone is rich and blinged out whi-- actually that sounds like a good idea.

[The Warshaper]

I love a good discussion!

1. Limiting the amount of gross sales per character would help to prevent 'sid bloat' on characters that either by virtue of when they play, or how much knowledge they have earned by playing the game and knowing what is valuable(which isn't something to punish anyone for).

2. Newplayer Bob would be able to sell, whenever they are able to, up to a certain amount to a merchant which would help retain players. Frustrations over 9000 occurs when new folks go out and play and are not able to sell -anything- they brought back. Most of the things these players will bring back are common hunting or foraging items, which usually means in the current state of shops that nobody wants it. They are forced to either lug it around or dump it.

3. Waste of resources. Thematically, nothing would be wasted in Zalanthas. You can see heaps of common resources laying around in the wild because players aren't able to either craft with them, or sell them(usually because the item limit has been reached) Over hunting with the 'sales per character/per day' in mind would make over hunting less likely because there is no rush to blow your load of x y or z that you've gathered before anyone else does. And eventually players would learn that gathering anymore would be a waste of time/dead weight hauling back and wouldn't pursue with that route.

These are all the reasons I can really think of at this time, please poke holes where you can if you see some oversight in my reasoning.

[Lizzie]

But then everyone is rich and blinged out whi-- actually that sounds like a good idea.

Here's the thing - rich and blinged out will depend on what they bring in, what they have access to, etc. And - if the limit is only 2 (that's arbitrary), you can't sell 5 silky braes for 700 sids each, even immediately after a game reset. You can only sell 2. But you are guaranteed that two-item sale. You can also sell 2 gem-encrusted tunics, and 2 diamond-adorned collars, etc. etc. But if you don't make those things, don't steal them, and don't inherit them from the apartment you just rented - then you'll at least get that 28 sids for each of the two cunyati branches you found on the trash heap this morning.

It's not guaranteed to be a lot of sids. But it's guaranteed that you'll get something, every day. Would be great for loggers who travel a lot, and are afraid to bring too much because they don't want to be stuck unable to move from one room to the next without losing 40 stamina points, for four RL days. They know they can bring two logs. Or four logs, as long as two of them are different from the other two.

[Vex]

It seems like the problem is people not having anything useful to do with all that 'sid.

[ShaLeah]

It seems like the problem is people not having anything useful to do with all that 'sid.

Plenty to do with it.  There is always someone to pay off. Always favors to buy.


I'm against rich independents and for monopolies btw so nix anything that makes it easier for indies to get moar sid.

[Synthesis]

It seems like the problem is people not having anything useful to do with all that 'sid.

Plenty to do with it.  There is always someone to pay off. Always favors to buy.


I'm against rich independents and for monopolies btw so nix anything that makes it easier for indies to get moar sid.

I think there's a sizeable portion of the playerbase that really doesn't care much for playing politics.  Maybe it's just me, though.

[Armaddict]

It seems like the problem is people not having anything useful to do with all that 'sid.

There is, they just aren't doing it.  We have all these threads about people ending stories and we need less pvp.  We have action players who are complaining about not having something to do.  We have pro-pk people saying they like to do it but will only do it when necessary.

Can you people start hiring some freakin' guards and investigators and spies and assassins and bounty hunters already?  XD

[Heade]

It seems like the problem is people not having anything useful to do with all that 'sid.

There is, they just aren't doing it.  We have all these threads about people ending stories and we need less pvp.  We have action players who are complaining about not having something to do.  We have pro-pk people saying they like to do it but will only do it when necessary.

Can you people start hiring some freakin' guards and investigators and spies and assassins and bounty hunters already?  XD

I've done that. But honestly, it doesn't help a lot, many times. People just take your sid and lie to you, guards aren't around very much, and bounty hunters are only really good after the fact. I've hired multiple guards and spies on characters, and had them killed really easily anyhow. But I do still suggest doing it, on characters that have the sids to do so. It makes the RP much more fun, and who knows...maybe one of them will actually do their job one day.

[Cind]

It seems like the problem is people not having anything useful to do with all that 'sid.

Make that minor merchant house which sells booze, whose name everyone should be whispering in their sleep, much less know, and have them open a shop selling KEGS OF BOOZE. Problem solved. Everyone is poor now.

[ShaLeah]

It seems like the problem is people not having anything useful to do with all that 'sid.

Plenty to do with it.  There is always someone to pay off. Always favors to buy.


I'm against rich independents and for monopolies btw so nix anything that makes it easier for indies to get moar sid.

I think there's a sizeable portion of the playerbase that really doesn't care much for playing politics.  Maybe it's just me, though.

Are they against life?

If you're an independent thriving in a city paying off the law there isn't really politics; it's survival. You really have no choice BUT to politic in a way. You have a nice warehouse/apartment with profits in there.  Why wouldn't you pay the law for extra protection? Why not pay off a templar regularly to keep on their good side? Why not grease that merchant? Spend that sid.

The alternative is to keep your base away from anywhere you need to be political in. Like a nice cave. Or tent, heh.

[Synthesis]

It seems like the problem is people not having anything useful to do with all that 'sid.

Plenty to do with it.  There is always someone to pay off. Always favors to buy.


I'm against rich independents and for monopolies btw so nix anything that makes it easier for indies to get moar sid.

I think there's a sizeable portion of the playerbase that really doesn't care much for playing politics.  Maybe it's just me, though.

Are they against life?

If you're an independent thriving in a city paying off the law there isn't really politics; it's survival. You really have no choice BUT to politic in a way. You have a nice warehouse/apartment with profits in there.  Why wouldn't you pay the law for extra protection? Why not pay off a templar regularly to keep on their good side? Why not grease that merchant? Spend that sid.

The alternative is to keep your base away from anywhere you need to be political in. Like a nice cave. Or tent, heh.

The more  you start paying one person for protection, the more other people want to try to kill you because of it.  The simplest way to survive is just to let everyone loot your stash at will, and suck -that- up as a cost of doing business.

[Brokkr]

Back to the OP.  Is the problem really the selling price, or is it the availability?  If we capped certain items so that only a certain amount could get foraged, globally, over a certain amount of time, would that be a better alternative?

[evilcabbage]

if you do that, other people will miss out due to playtime issues and inevitably we circle back to the same issue.

[Synthesis]

Back to the OP.  Is the problem really the selling price, or is it the availability?  If we capped certain items so that only a certain amount could get foraged, globally, over a certain amount of time, would that be a better alternative?

There are a lot of problems.

1) Some items are vastly more valuable than they ought to be, based on ease of acquisition.
2) However, some of these items fill a critical niche for newbie survival.
3) PK-centricity leads to a lack of crafting PCs to soak up the supply of basic crafting materials.
4) Some crafting subclasses are extremely powerful low-effort 'sid generators.
5) It's extremely difficult to balance the system to be fair to guilds with and without the haggle skill.
6) It's extremely difficult to balance the system to be fair to both newbie PCs and veteran PCs.
7) It's extremely difficult to balance the system to be fair to both newbie players and veteran players.
Most of the time, buying raw materials from a shop (without the haggle skill) is not worth it, when you factor in the value of the crafted item x expected success rate, especially at low skill levels.
9) Of course, if you lower the value of the raw materials to make them easier to buy, that also lowers the selling value, making them less likely to be sold at all in the first place.
10) Coordinating PC-to-PC transactions is difficult for a variety of reasons
11) Half of the playerbase wants being an indie to be harder, half of the playerbase doesn't want their cheese moved.
12) There really isn't a lot to spend your 'sid on, mid-to-end-game.
13) If you're a crafting-heavy PC, often the only useful thing you can do during a login period is craft stuff, leading to a glut of unnecessarily-crafted stuff, and the resultant apparent excess of 'sids.

[only_plays_tribals]

I feel like capping global availability would end up frustrating for people trying to make a living as grebbers because of play time issues

If anything we have an inflation problem where the value of coin is diminished by the amount of coin able to be accumulated versus the amount of goods and services to spend it on

True I can pay Amos to guard me or Malik to leave me alone but the coin is purely symbolic if there is nothing else I need it for outside of using bribe money to bribe someone else, who will then take that money and bribe someone else etc etc.

[only_plays_tribals]

Ideally, to make coin worthwhile, there should be tangible goods one could covet, thus making coins covetable.

Quality/Rarity of a good or service should scale with cost and the cost should scale with the amount of money in rotation globally.

If it's easy to make 1000 coins then 1000 coins should = $20 for example, as a comparison.

IT should be entirely possible to impulse spend my money away also.

But.. if you wanted a simple band-aid to curtail excessive hunting/gathering and create a money sink.. Stable fees could be a LOT more expensive, I think.

[Synthesis]

Stable fees are only a problem for noobs.  Raising them wouldn't do anything about mid-to-endgame wealth.  If anything, you'd just see an increase in people hanging out with their mounts in places that are relatively safe quit-rooms in order to avoid the fee as much as possible.  (Which already happens with noob PCs, when due to skill-suckage, you aren't guaranteed to break even on a daily hunt/forage run, when you factor in stable fees, hunger, and thirst).

[only_plays_tribals]

Yeah that's true. I mean there really is no easy fix for an Econ problem. Raising costs to match the global money volume and increasing availability of desirable and/or required goods/services would realistically have to extend beyond one domain. At least as far as my understanding goes.

[AdamBlue]

Make more things for players to buy, and to spend money on in the high and lower scale of things. Get rid of the monopoly of Nenyuk on apartment buildings and allow wealthy PC's to own apartment buildings, (and other bits of freshly reclaimed land after the last set of natural disasters) set apartment prices, and take in apartment income. Conversely, make them pay for the guards, facilities present on-site, and repairs to the damages of the apartments.
Some apartments remain that, 'just apartments'. However, being a landowner in Allanak is valuable, as it allows you to basically cordon off your own little piece of lawless territory as long as it isn't in view of any guards.
Money is taxed by the Allanaki Government.
Soldiers can obtain warrants from Templars to search owned premises.
Soldiers and Templars can also be bribed to mind their own business.

Suddenly, Templar PCs have money, Soldier PCs have money, Merchant PCs have money,  Criminal PCs have money, and the interesting dynamic between landowners and their renters, criminals and the people they have to bribe, and the operations they run out of a locale.

Some places may become exclusive bars, some places may become secret fight clubs, some places may become sex dungeons, some places may become spice dens that aren't limited to nobility or the 'rinth.

There are already a few 'houses' in game that people claim for themselves in some areas. What I'm saying is that it could be vastly expanded in many ways, shapes, and forms.
Creating a Minor Merchant House shouldn't be the only way for you to be able to 'own land'.

[650Booger]

Yeah.

[Heade]

I mean there really is no easy fix for an Econ problem.

I agree with this. Since long-lived PCs sort of represent the "stars" of our ongoing collaborative story within the gameworld filled with vNPCs who are perpetually poor, I don't see a problem with late-game PCs being wealthy. But I -would- like to see more attractive things for them to spend their sid on, hence...

Make more things for players to buy, and to spend money on in the high and lower scale of things. Get rid of the monopoly of Nenyuk on apartment buildings and allow wealthy PC's to own apartment buildings, (and other bits of freshly reclaimed land after the last set of natural disasters) set apartment prices, and take in apartment income. Conversely, make them pay for the guards, facilities present on-site, and repairs to the damages of the apartments.
Some apartments remain that, 'just apartments'. However, being a landowner in Allanak is valuable, as it allows you to basically cordon off your own little piece of lawless territory as long as it isn't in view of any guards.
Money is taxed by the Allanaki Government.
Soldiers can obtain warrants from Templars to search owned premises.
Soldiers and Templars can also be bribed to mind their own business.

Suddenly, Templar PCs have money, Soldier PCs have money, Merchant PCs have money,  Criminal PCs have money, and the interesting dynamic between landowners and their renters, criminals and the people they have to bribe, and the operations they run out of a locale.

Some places may become exclusive bars, some places may become secret fight clubs, some places may become sex dungeons, some places may become spice dens that aren't limited to nobility or the 'rinth.

There are already a few 'houses' in game that people claim for themselves in some areas. What I'm saying is that it could be vastly expanded in many ways, shapes, and forms.
Creating a Minor Merchant House shouldn't be the only way for you to be able to 'own land'.

I really like the above idea, and would like to see other options for money-sinks that players would enjoy, and thus attract them towards spending it.

The problem with changing the supply and demand side of things is that, when you try to make things more difficult for mid-late game characters to get sids, it makes it impossibly difficult for the early-game characters to make sids. They can't have that eureka! moment where they get a small come-up. And a global discovery cap on foraged items would just reinforce the old reboot rush for those capped items that has been OOCly jarring in the past, and a major OOC barrier for noobs who don't know how the mechanic works, or have the time to exploit it.

I personally would like to avoid adding anything that's difficult or impossible to be ICly explained to another character. And such a mechanic could almost only be explained IC by saying "luck" or something of the sort, but if you know how the mechanics work, it's really not luck at all.

I would much rather see the rate at which merchants "sell to a random passer-by" increased to allow for a greater number of people to sell to a merchant, or somehow scale the "sells to a random passer-by" to the number of players logged in, so that they sell to random vNPCs more when there are more players, and less when there are less players. This would help to ensure that a high number of players in the game wouldn't make merchants consistently out of sids and full up on item types, while still limiting it so that during low-pop times, a single player isn't able to endlessly generate wealth off of one type of item. It would also be a more permenant fix that would scale with the growth of Arm as a whole, which I'd very much like to see. It could even be tied to more than just player numbers. The number of X classes/subclasses could have an effect on the scaling as well.

[Inks]

I feel like the economy is alright. Put a cap on RS tailor though.

Also OP thing would break the economy more.

Put a limit on new GDB topics per player though.

[Heade]

Put a limit on new GDB topics per player though.

Lolz. What would you put that limit at? I don't think many people would break even a small daily limit.

[Inks]

Put a limit on new GDB topics per player though.

Lolz. What would you put that limit at? I don't think many people would break even a small daily limit.

Pretty sure only one player would break the limit 

[zztri]

As long as there's infinite supply, there's going to be problems.. So I don't think this could be handled.

Limiting players? Why? To create a new profession; middle-party? The moment such a thing happens I'll offer people in the taverns to sell their excess items for a cut.

Making price degrade with the amount the merchant already has? Much more logical. Let's say a gold nugget costs 10k 'sids. The merchant will buy it for 5K 'sids and sell for 20K sids. When someone sells the merchant third gold nugget, the merchant offers only 4K 'sids - 10% lower and sell for 19k 'sids - 5% lower. It would go on until the merchant decides gold nuggets are worthless because he already has 196 of them and sells them for only 5 'sids, until he offloads a few of the stock.

But it won't work. It will end up with a lot of things becoming dirt-cheap quickly and the quicker people will win. Others will keep selling though, why not?

How to stop this deflation? Make forageable gold nuggets a limited amount, so after 14 is foraged, even if the character wears special foraging gloves, wields a shovel, dons the special foraging googles and casts 'detect minerals' he can't find more.

Same should have to be done for animals. To stop deflation for steel-embedded skeet chitins, skeet should spawn a fixed amount.

But that wouldn't work, skeet would be extinct in the first few hours of the game. Why doesn't it happen in real life? Yeah it happens for some animals but a lot of animals are immune to humans' capacity for genocide. Why?

Let's take rats as an example. With all the technology, experience, studies, cats, poisons etc. we can't get rid of rats. Because.... they hide. They have lairs that are not easily accessible. They propagate in obnoxious amounts, a momma rat will give a litter of 8-10 in a about 20 days, too lazy to google but the it should be about right. That's roughly half a rat a day per female rat!

But our skeet... they stay in the open and they don't reproduce. Hell, I didn't see one single female animal of any kind. I don't know if they're even coded.

So in the end, no matter what you do, all you can is to cause more problems. If a complete overhaul of foraging, chopping wood, picking cotton, digging clay and animal spawning isn't to be redone from scratch, problems will arise.

Still, I agree with the option of merchants asking for/offering less if the item is already plentiful as the best.

[Boogerbear]

It seems like the problem is people not having anything useful to do with all that 'sid.

Bribe and bribe and bribe and indie merchants will still get assassinated.

[Mercy]

Not sure if this train of thought would be considered derailing and require a new thread but here goes all the same.

I'm only on my second character here, so take what I say with a grain (mountain?) of salt. Based on my brief experience with things, I feel like a combination of item 'quality' and degradation would go a long way to remedying stagnant economy. Granted, I can also see it being both tedious and annoying so maybe that's why it's not already a thing.

To elaborate:

Each item would be given a quality level which determines how effective it is, and how quickly it degrades. Both just from existing in the world, as well as from use. (I'd recommend the rate of degradation either be severely reduced or halted while offline, to prevent people logging in after a break and their items disintegrating in their hands suddenly). While I have seen armor take damage, very rarely, the only item type I've ever seen need to be repaired are shields. It makes sense that weapons would become damaged and break over time, especially considering the materials used (bone, chitin, obsidian). Even clothes wear down after a while from being worn constantly, snag a corner there and so on. Armor should probably wear down at a much faster rate than it does currently just from standard combat. And I feel like almost all items should have some sort of passive degradation, which is obviously much slower at higher quality levels.

Put a hard cap on quality of items sold by merchants. Have repair skills and npcs lower the quality of an item when it is repaired, as it becomes more hackneyed and makeshift.

Could additionally give PCs control over the quality level of the item they wish to craft, as they reach higher skill levels. Higher quality pieces requiring a mark-up in materials. With intentionally low quality perhaps costing a reduced amount when compared to a low-skill crafter making the same item at the same low quality.

With quality also being a factor into price (maybe give materials quality also?) it'd make starting out for independents a lot harder, as not only would they struggle to make as much money, they'd also have to be spending their profits on maintenance and upkeep. Puts an emphasis on seeking out highly skilled crafters when you need something good and also gives the option of getting a shittier (hah, shit-tier. woo I'm child) item for something you plan to use infrequently or only once. And for prim and proper PCs, gives them reason to replace their wardrobe when a fray appears in the sleeve. Or their sofa cushion starts to deflate. Can't be having that.

I will say, I have no idea how difficult this would be to add to the current framework of the game. Honestly, it sounds like a pain in the ass with the level of depth I have envisioned. Also, no clue if anyone would actually enjoy this system. I would, but I'm a masochist sooooooo.

[Synthesis]

Not sure if this train of thought would be considered derailing and require a new thread but here goes all the same.

I'm only on my second character here, so take what I say with a grain (mountain?) of salt. Based on my brief experience with things, I feel like a combination of item 'quality' and degradation would go a long way to remedying stagnant economy. Granted, I can also see it being both tedious and annoying so maybe that's why it's not already a thing.

To elaborate:

Each item would be given a quality level which determines how effective it is, and how quickly it degrades. Both just from existing in the world, as well as from use. (I'd recommend the rate of degradation either be severely reduced or halted while offline, to prevent people logging in after a break and their items disintegrating in their hands suddenly). While I have seen armor take damage, very rarely, the only item type I've ever seen need to be repaired are shields. It makes sense that weapons would become damaged and break over time, especially considering the materials used (bone, chitin, obsidian). Even clothes wear down after a while from being worn constantly, snag a corner there and so on. Armor should probably wear down at a much faster rate than it does currently just from standard combat. And I feel like almost all items should have some sort of passive degradation, which is obviously much slower at higher quality levels.

Put a hard cap on quality of items sold by merchants. Have repair skills and npcs lower the quality of an item when it is repaired, as it becomes more hackneyed and makeshift.

Could additionally give PCs control over the quality level of the item they wish to craft, as they reach higher skill levels. Higher quality pieces requiring a mark-up in materials. With intentionally low quality perhaps costing a reduced amount when compared to a low-skill crafter making the same item at the same low quality.

With quality also being a factor into price (maybe give materials quality also?) it'd make starting out for independents a lot harder, as not only would they struggle to make as much money, they'd also have to be spending their profits on maintenance and upkeep. Puts an emphasis on seeking out highly skilled crafters when you need something good and also gives the option of getting a shittier (hah, shit-tier. woo I'm child) item for something you plan to use infrequently or only once. And for prim and proper PCs, gives them reason to replace their wardrobe when a fray appears in the sleeve. Or their sofa cushion starts to deflate. Can't be having that.

I will say, I have no idea how difficult this would be to add to the current framework of the game. Honestly, it sounds like a pain in the ass with the level of depth I have envisioned. Also, no clue if anyone would actually enjoy this system. I would, but I'm a masochist sooooooo.

I had a long reply for this, but the TL;DR is "Fuck That."  I have plenty of fucking chores to take care of IRL.