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.
Quote from: bcw81 on January 18, 2012, 10:57:54 AM
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.
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IMO the doc is probably just outdated, just like the erdlu helpfile that references kanks.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?
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."
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.
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.
Quote from: Desertman on January 18, 2012, 11:53:48 AM
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.
Quote from: Kastion on January 18, 2012, 12:11:44 PM
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
Quote from: bcw81 on January 18, 2012, 02:56:37 PM
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.
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: ?
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.
Quote from: Kalai on January 18, 2012, 03:06:59 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Delirium on January 18, 2012, 03:22:52 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Lizzie on January 18, 2012, 04:41:50 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Lizzie on January 18, 2012, 04:49:11 PM
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....
(http://thumbs2.modthesims.info/img/3/1/6/9/9/6/3/MTS2_EsmeraldaF_1020230_pic_morpheus.jpg)
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.
Quote from: Tisiphone on January 18, 2012, 04:53:54 PM
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.
...
(http://i295.photobucket.com/albums/mm140/inertialinix/roundbango.png)
I'm never stabling a mount again.
People other than HG's would just use Beetles. HG's would just feel shafted in the end.
Quote from: Tisiphone on January 18, 2012, 04:53:54 PM
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.
It's slightly hurt, because its stats are different. THat's because, it's not the same mount that you brought in. Your inix isn't YOUR inix, when you bring it to a public stables. It's "the inix you're riding today." Sometimes, it's the same size/weight. Sometimes, it's lighter or heavier, or bigger or smaller. Sometimes, it's older or younger. It is usually not the same one that you brought in.
Which is why you wouldn't be charged based on how long it's been there. YOU didn't leave THAT inix there for 10 days. You brought an inix in 10 days ago, it was let out to various other people, and MAYBE returned to you - or maybe someone else is riding it right now. Or maybe someone rode it yesterday, and it got eaten by a mekiillot.
I don't like the idea of changing stable costs for any type of mount, because as someone pointed out already, a half-giant won't have an option of picking an erdlu, or a sunlon, or pretty much anything else. He's stuck with an inix, and due to the nature of a half-giant supposedly being -remarkably stupid-, one would hope he is also at a financial disadvantage as well.
Quote from: Lizzie on January 18, 2012, 05:00:13 PM
It's slightly hurt, because its stats are different. THat's because, it's not the same mount that you brought in. Your inix isn't YOUR inix, when you bring it to a public stables. It's "the inix you're riding today." Sometimes, it's the same size/weight. Sometimes, it's lighter or heavier, or bigger or smaller. Sometimes, it's older or younger. It is usually not the same one that you brought in.
Which is why you wouldn't be charged based on how long it's been there. YOU didn't leave THAT inix there for 10 days. You brought an inix in 10 days ago, it was let out to various other people, and MAYBE returned to you - or maybe someone else is riding it right now. Or maybe someone rode it yesterday, and it got eaten by a mekiillot.
I entirely reject this line of argumentation. I bought Bango from Flora's brother for five hundred sids. I rode him everywhere and learned him to fight. He charged at lanky, smelly giths and trampled over them before they could throw spears at th' Lady Templar. When I got shot dead by dagdum skinnies inexplicably far from home, my ol' dad
1 took him home to his retirement ranch by Menos, where he lived happily ever after.
2You can't take away my Bango.
Yeah seriously. It's the same inix. Lets not make IC justifications for OOC limitations, please.
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on January 18, 2012, 05:10:22 PM
Yeah seriously. It's the same inix. Lets not make IC justifications for OOC limitations, please.
Edited out actually.
Some people might not even know those mount types exist.
Suffice to say it is the same mount that you get back every single time, without exception.
The only reason the stats change is because it is coded that way, an OOC limitation.
On the note of giants: If a giant cannot afford a mount, then he shouldn't buy one. There is no hardwritten rule that says every non-elven race must ride mounts at all times outside the city walls.
And before someone says that it's hardly feasible to hunt/etc without a mount - It is entirely possible, and more times than not, much more fun.
Quote from: Desertman on January 18, 2012, 05:24:19 PM
The only reason the stats change is because it is coded that way, an OOC limitation.
True, so far as it goes. I (and, extending the benefit of the doubt, Lizzie) was just trying to find an IC justification for something that helps make two OOC constructs plausible.
This isn't actually too far off base from what we normally do. The entire MUD is an OOC construct; IC is just a semi-shared thoughtspace. We take all the OOC constructs and clothe them in IC justifications. We just have more trouble with some than with others, because our general framework is based off of our general framework of empirical experience.
Quote from: Tisiphone on January 18, 2012, 05:57:11 PM
Quote from: Desertman on January 18, 2012, 05:24:19 PM
The only reason the stats change is because it is coded that way, an OOC limitation.
True, so far as it goes. I (and, extending the benefit of the doubt, Lizzie) was just trying to find an IC justification for something that helps make two OOC constructs plausible.
This isn't actually too far off base from what we normally do. The entire MUD is an OOC construct; IC is just a semi-shared thoughtspace. We take all the OOC constructs and clothe them in IC justifications. We just have more trouble with some than with others, because our general framework is based off of our general framework of empirical experience.
Oh no I get that, I'm just clarifying that there isn't a need for justification in this case. It really is the same mount heh.
Quote from: Desertman on January 18, 2012, 06:27:29 PM
Quote from: Tisiphone on January 18, 2012, 05:57:11 PM
Quote from: Desertman on January 18, 2012, 05:24:19 PM
The only reason the stats change is because it is coded that way, an OOC limitation.
True, so far as it goes. I (and, extending the benefit of the doubt, Lizzie) was just trying to find an IC justification for something that helps make two OOC constructs plausible.
This isn't actually too far off base from what we normally do. The entire MUD is an OOC construct; IC is just a semi-shared thoughtspace. We take all the OOC constructs and clothe them in IC justifications. We just have more trouble with some than with others, because our general framework is based off of our general framework of empirical experience.
Oh no I get that, I'm just clarifying that there isn't a need for justification in this case. It really is the same mount heh.
Then how do you explain, ICly, that Mount #1 is now smaller and heavier and younger today, than it was yesterday? Answer: it's not the same one.
Quote from: Lizzie on January 18, 2012, 06:35:09 PM
Quote from: Desertman on January 18, 2012, 06:27:29 PM
Quote from: Tisiphone on January 18, 2012, 05:57:11 PM
Quote from: Desertman on January 18, 2012, 05:24:19 PM
The only reason the stats change is because it is coded that way, an OOC limitation.
True, so far as it goes. I (and, extending the benefit of the doubt, Lizzie) was just trying to find an IC justification for something that helps make two OOC constructs plausible.
This isn't actually too far off base from what we normally do. The entire MUD is an OOC construct; IC is just a semi-shared thoughtspace. We take all the OOC constructs and clothe them in IC justifications. We just have more trouble with some than with others, because our general framework is based off of our general framework of empirical experience.
Oh no I get that, I'm just clarifying that there isn't a need for justification in this case. It really is the same mount heh.
Then how do you explain, ICly, that Mount #1 is now smaller and heavier and younger today, than it was yesterday? Answer: it's not the same one.
the people who run the stables must be damn gickers magically changing my mount! bastards
It's a pointless arguement, really. You're suggesting something that doesn't do anything to help the game, doesn't do anything to increase enjoyment of the game, and could very easily result in more people who inappropriately neglect to stable their mounts at all but instead go idle AT the stables while their mount rests, and then go out again. And then you'd have to deal with players being annoyed because "realistically," the stablehand would insist that you pay to use his stable as a resting spot for your mount, but codedly, he isn't because he's an NPC.
And then you'd have to deal with the naysayers who say code trumps RP.
And then blah blah blah...
just seems like a lot of new threads suggesting changes for the sake of changing, and not for any other useful reason.
I'm suggesting this because I don't like seeing inix in the south, and beetles in the north. That's my main point behind my argument. Adding something like this would, indeed, add to people using mounts -other- than those two for -everything-.
Quote from: Lizzie on January 18, 2012, 05:00:13 PM
THat's because, it's not the same mount that you brought in. e pointed out already, a
If you're using this as a justification for renting then automatically unrenting a mount from the stables so you don't have to, you know... wait, then you're wrong.
For as long as I can remember, this has been considered abusing the code.
Quote from: Kronibas on January 18, 2012, 07:23:04 PM
Quote from: Lizzie on January 18, 2012, 05:00:13 PM
THat's because, it's not the same mount that you brought in. e pointed out already, a
If you're using this as a justification for renting then automatically unrenting a mount from the stables so you don't have to, you know... wait, then you're wrong.
For as long as I can remember, this has been considered abusing the code.
I'm not seeing -anyone- saying that they're doing that in this thread.
Quote from: bcw81 on January 18, 2012, 06:52:03 PM
I'm suggesting this because I don't like seeing inix in the south, and beetles in the north. That's my main point behind my argument. Adding something like this would, indeed, add to people using mounts -other- than those two for -everything-.
Then be the change.
Play a templar in the north who fines people who come up with beetles. Or a templar in the south who fines people who come down with inixes. Or a Tuluki dwarf with a focus to prevent the invasion of southern mounts into the sacred terrain of the north. Or whatever else. Just because -you- don't like people who come from the south, buying and using war beetles to travel north? Really? That's - a very strange peeve.
It's blatantly going against the games documentation to have Amos the Southern Hunter going around the southlands on an inix and expecting to have the same upkeep as Talia the Southern Hunter who rides an erdlu.
Quote from: bcw81 on January 18, 2012, 06:52:03 PM
I'm suggesting this because I don't like seeing inix in the south, and beetles in the north. That's my main point behind my argument. Adding something like this would, indeed, add to people using mounts -other- than those two for -everything-.
Do you not like seeing particular mounts in other areas of the game for OOC reasons or IC reasons? Because to me it sounds like you're just nitpicking an excerpt from a helpfile that is likely very outdated.
As an alternative to charging people more to stable their mounts in different areas of the game world, why don't we just add additional mounts? Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't a sunlon a crossbreed? Why not a sunback/inix mix?
Then think of it this way instead, if it'll help you wrap your mind around the playability issue that Talia has already explained:
It _really_ only costs 2 sids to stable an erdlu, and only 6 sids to stable an inix, and only 5 sids to stable a war beetle, in the opposing cities. So the stablemasters are profiting big-time, but erdlu riders are exploited more because they THINK they're getting off cheap.
I hate it when threads reach that point of...
"Now I am going to argue just to argue."
I'm out.
Quote from: Desertman on January 18, 2012, 08:03:52 PM
I hate it when threads reach that point of...
"Now I am going to argue just to argue."
I'm out.
I like this quite a bit. There should be at least one effin' perk to having an erdlu.
Incredible speed.
It would be awesome if the stabling fees for mounts were changed based off the maintenance of the beast. Yes, HG's ride Inix and it would mean an up in cost for them because Inix would cost more to care for. They also pay outrageous (fittingly so) tailoring costs. They also can punch things to death right out of chargen, folks also pay them good coin just to be around now and then.
A pc buying a 'shittier' mount because they're cheaper for maintenance makes sense. A pc willing to pay more to keep there Inix healthy would also makes sense. I think it adds another dynamic into the world to be taken into account, always a good thing IMO.
OOC annoyance of having less coin to buy gear? Punishing players who don't hunt a lot when they go out? Sounds Zalanthan to me, enjoy being broke. Being broke is part of the gameworld too. Great idea IMO, seems like something so obvious it'd already be ig actually.. I'm surprised this hasn't been suggested earlier now that I read it.
Quote from: path on January 18, 2012, 08:20:12 PM
I like this quite a bit. There should be at least one effin' perk to having an erdlu.
>run
you slap an erdlu on the ass and it begins to move at the speed of light.
>e;e;e;e;e;e;e;e;e;e;e;e;e;e;e;e;e;
Quote from: Majikal on January 18, 2012, 08:27:56 PM
Quote from: path on January 18, 2012, 08:20:12 PM
I like this quite a bit. There should be at least one effin' perk to having an erdlu.
>run
you slap an erdlu on the ass and it begins to move at the speed of light.
>e;e;e;e;e;e;e;e;e;e;e;e;e;e;e;e;e;
Erm, more like..
>e;e;e;e;e
An erdlu is too exhausted to move any further.
An erdlu can run long enough to get to any of the good resting spots.
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on January 18, 2012, 08:37:11 PM
An erdlu can run long enough to get to any of the good resting spots.
Exactly, and let us not forget that there are different types of erdlu, with some possessing definitively noticeable differences in stamina.
Quote from: Lizzie on January 18, 2012, 07:47:25 PM
Then think of it this way instead, if it'll help you wrap your mind around the playability issue that Talia has already explained:
It _really_ only costs 2 sids to stable an erdlu, and only 6 sids to stable an inix, and only 5 sids to stable a war beetle, in the opposing cities. So the stablemasters are profiting big-time, but erdlu riders are exploited more because they THINK they're getting off cheap.
I like thinking of it this way. I'm also a fan of the "It might not be the same inix/erdlu/whatever if you leave it in for so long" mentality.
Isn't an easier explanation that the brutish half giant might be mistreating your mount?
If you make HG stabling cost more, even fewer HGs will be willing to play stupid when you scam them.
</facetious>
If you make things more expensive, more players will just do dumb gold-farming stuff to pay for it.
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on January 18, 2012, 08:37:11 PM
An erdlu can run long enough to get to any of the good resting spots.
It's okay to confuse an erdlu's walking speed for running. ;D
Quote from: Dalmeth on January 19, 2012, 10:02:06 PM
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on January 18, 2012, 08:37:11 PM
An erdlu can run long enough to get to any of the good resting spots.
It's okay to confuse an erdlu's walking speed for running. ;D
Hah, true.
Considering 20 sid is 1/5 of alot of peoples monthly salary, nobody would ride inix or beetles if they cost more at all except Noble houses or others with their own stables.
If you read the documentation, that's who it says -does- ride inix. They're supposed to be expensive. But on that same note, having cheaper erdlu fees and all that would give some reason to use other mounts.
Well now that's a line of reasoning I can get into.
Erdlu's and beetles 15 'sids
Them nearly useless Sunbacks and Sunlons,10 'sids.
Erdlu = 10
Ox/Beetle/Sunback/Sunlon = 20
Inix = 30
I'd be down for that.
Quote from: Gunnerblaster on January 20, 2012, 05:45:21 AM
Erdlu = 10
Ox/Beetle/Sunback/Sunlon = 20
Inix = 30
I'd be down for that.
I would probably put beetle with erdlu and make it 15, 25, 40.
I've always thought 20 was bad cheap, that's like.... one swallow of water.
In the north it's -almost- a full waterskin.
I don't think this would impact the game in any significant way and don't really see a point in bothering with it.
I think it would if the prices changed more than 5 coins, maybe instead of a 5 coin decrease with erdlu, they'd be 5 coins to stable, and inix would be 60. I think it would make a great difference that way.
Quote from: Synthesis on January 19, 2012, 04:38:15 PM
If you make things more expensive, more players will just do dumb gold-farming stuff to pay for it.
I think this is all that would happen if anything.
You can do this backwards and achieve the same results...
Erdlu: 5
Mid-Range Beetles/beasts: 10
Inix: 20
All of a sudden hiring mercenaries and handling hirelings fees for their mounts/even hiring other
PC's gets easier. Gas just got cheaper in a sense, unless they're on inix.
sunlons are awesome
And they still don't have a helpfile.
Quote from: jstorrie on January 21, 2012, 07:01:47 PM
And they still don't have a helpfile.
Write one and send it in through the request tool. ;)
New Byn Sarge Dwarf Focus: Build stables for the Byn in their compound.
No point. Staff have already said no in the past.
Oh, well in that case, I'll go back to the more reasonable focus of raising an dwarven army to dig Steinal up.
I had an idea somewhere to work out a contract between the Byn and the city for free stabling in exchange for a yearly payment of x amount of sid. Or something. Could be worth a shot. Maybe you'll all need to go dig up some mysterious artifact in exchange, and die horribly in the attempt.
Never know 'til you try?
That would be way too easy to abuse, unless it was limited to only sergeants or higher.
I am not against the idea. I think it would be very cool, and is exactly the kind of cost-savings that large organizations should try for.
I've always personally been a fan of the idea of not getting the same beast when exchanging a ticket at the public stables, i.e the ticket would merely represent the type of animal you were entitled to, rather than a specific one, as this seems to make more sense to me for the larger city stables which would have perhaps hundreds of other virtual beasts stored there, although I appreciate that players like the idea of holding onto a specific beast for a long period of time, and this perhaps makes more sense if applied to House or clan stables, so that's fine with me too.
As far as the stabling fee is concerned, I think it's a cool idea, but I feel if implemented it would pretty quickly just become another one of those bits of the code players would work around, basically ignoring, since the change in charge would have to be quite high to put off a lot of indie PCs, based on how easy it is to make coin, and if it were raised that high, as Synthesis said earlier players would probably just twink out for the coin if they felt it gave them a decent advantage having X mount over Y.
Oh no way! Each mount is a jewel of individuality. Thou shalt not mangle that.
You can either ask for your particular beast, or you can ask for any old thing.
Everyone wins. :D