1. With the projected size of the world, I find it unlikely there would be 'just one' main trading area. More likely there would be '1 per geographically linked area'. Thus, likely 3 or so 'hubs', perhaps more. The absolute limiting factor would be travel-time between them.
2. NPC vendors can work for *both* sides if you are mindful of what you want to achieve: Eg
If you want them to mainly be for the 'low-end, sell my trash/loot etc', players then have a % tax (or cost per sale) and *not* a flat fee, a set upper limit to the 'cash box' the NPC has (this stops high end sales being the norm) and allow a fair number of sales slots. These kind of measure are most advantageous for selling high volume, low-value stock - such as bone chips or rusty swords. Thus you can identify what sector of the player-base would want face-to-face and setup the NPC vendor mechanism with details to ensure the sale type matches those who woulnd't want to use the face-to-face.
This type of constraint will push vendors with high-end, low volume (typically the 'professional merchant' or 'bespoke crafter' who *wants* face-to-face trading) goods to use traditional buy/sell methods. This would also be true for out-of town venues (perhaps). In this way, you can setup tailored 'disadvantages' for NPC vendors which are avoidable via face-to-face.
Implementing some form of 'merchant' skills that only work face-to-face would also promote this kind of thing.
3. Mailing is a tricky one. If mailing is 'easy' and not costly or time-consuming it will destroy any impetus towards social trading. It can be made to work, but only via a couple of ways (perhaps):
(a) using NPC movers - though taking *many* hours to get to you. This time needs to be longer than the time for you to go there and get it by a fair margin. There would also need to be a 'flat fee' + a 'fee per mile' x 'volume of items' applied to stop people mailing 'stacks of 100 ore' across the world for next to nothing in cost.
(b) Perhaps using a form of 'Transport Order' which PCs fulfil. You buy goods and these are entered into a 'consignment list' which (accredited merchant PCs) can then choose to try and fulfil. pick up the goods, transport to the destination and drop-off at a P.O. Box - at which point they collect the fee. Some tinkering would be needed to work out how this compares to 'PC order consignments' etc though.
NB: To succeed, we would need to establish what goods/types the demographic that prefers 'NPC delegated sales' would be mainly selling, and also what goods/types would be the mainstay for those who prefer face-to-face interactions. I strongly suspect that the bulk of these two disparate groups each has a 'characteristic' set of non-overlapping sales goods. This would therefore mean that a ruleset for the use of both mechanisms can be tailored to target advantages for each of those respective good types.
Aradune said:I think the having your own merchant NPC that would sell your wares is a good compromise fitting in-between one extreme (everything is face to face, player to player) and the other extreme, a full on auction house. I will say that I'm leaning towards this being what we'll do. Of course, this doesn't stop player to player trades/sales.
And then some kind of list board, as you mentioned.
As for the EC Tunnel part of things, while I do think people will find areas once they learn the world, the routes, efficient ways to get from point a to point b, etc. and that there will be places that make sense to place your merchant minion NPC there, I don't necessarily agree that we'll get a repeat of EQ, e.g there will be only one of these. The way the world is being crafted, where the races are, the different continents, etc. I'm hoping we would see multiple spots.
If people are concerned that because of the merchants minions that no one will do player to player trades, 1. I don't necessarily agree but 2. if that turned out to be the case in alpha and beta, we could implement a tax or similar system to encourage face to face trades.
Anyway, that's where I pretty much sit at the moment.
Without some kind of ongoing fee for a stall, npc wages or a tax, I'm not sure how you will incentivize manual trade. Without a cost drawback, I believe Raidan's thoughts would actually be inevitable and players would simply take the easy way out. I really think there has to be something to encourage traditional trade from the jump.
Lovely reasonable posts from Aradune. Phew!
Personally, it's only the listing/searching/filtering bit that really bothers me. I'd be quite happy to have to meet someone face-to-face as long as I don't have to sit in one particular location advertising my wares.
I don't doubt that one or a few physical places would become popular meeting places, but I'd much prefer to put up a trade listing, get a few tells from people about a few items, tell each buyer "I'll be outside the pub at 10 bells this night" and travel there to do those transactions at that time and place. Once you've got a few deals lined up then you start knocking out bargains to persuade people to meet you at the same time and place to save you time, etc. etc. You still get all the good social interaction and none of the eye-burning spam creating/searching.
Anything to avoid standing in EC tunnel hoping to spot an auction scroll buy that you're interested in while hoping you aren't going to have to lug all your items back to the bank yet again.
It's not the travelling to sell or buy I mind, it's the travelling and then not getting to sell or buy. Again. And again.
Aradune said:I think the having your own merchant NPC that would sell your wares is a good compromise fitting in-between one extreme (everything is face to face, player to player) and the other extreme, a full on auction house. I will say that I'm leaning towards this being what we'll do. Of course, this doesn't stop player to player trades/sales.
And then some kind of list board, as you mentioned.
As for the EC Tunnel part of things, while I do think people will find areas once they learn the world, the routes, efficient ways to get from point a to point b, etc. and that there will be places that make sense to place your merchant minion NPC there, I don't necessarily agree that we'll get a repeat of EQ, e.g there will be only one of these. The way the world is being crafted, where the races are, the different continents, etc. I'm hoping we would see multiple spots.
If people are concerned that because of the merchants minions that no one will do player to player trades, 1. I don't necessarily agree but 2. if that turned out to be the case in alpha and beta, we could implement a tax or similar system to encourage face to face trades.
Anyway, that's where I pretty much sit at the moment.
copied from the non global economy thread:
At the same time, please read up on my many posts where I talk about the difference between an Idea and an Implementation.
1. No global search-for-sale. We've not said this is out of the question. I think we definitely want regional searches, and if global was necessary we wouldn't rule it out.
2. We've not said there is no fast travel of any kind (although in one post/interview I wrote something poorly that could be interpreted that way, which I regret). Some classes will have the ability to teleport people. There will obviously be some restrictions. The only restriction we've brought up at this point is that you probably couldn't be teleported somewhere you didn't at least one time walk/ride there yourself.
We definitely don't want non-global to equal drudgery, toil, or inconvenince. And most certainly the desire for local trading is to make the game better -- we don't sit down and think of anything 'punative' to inflict our players with. On the contrary, we're determined to make the best game possible for our target audience.
Thanks again for the input Brad. I find your statements quite reassuring, and really look forward to seeing what system you guys come up with in the future.
Dullahan said:Without some kind of ongoing fee for a stall, npc wages or a tax, I'm not sure how you will incentivize manual trade. Without a cost drawback, I believe Raidan's thoughts would actually be inevitable and players would simply take the easy way out. I really think there has to be something to encourage traditional trade from the jump.
A reasonable tax or fee should be all the incentive necessary. The players that enjoy face to face trading, and those that want to make the maximum profit possible will use that method. Those players that aren't concerned with squeezing every last copper out of a sale, and don't mind paying a bit for a less demanding process, will use that method. I don't think you give players enough credit. Those that see trading as another game within the game are going to play that way because they enjoy it. They don't need an incentive to do so. For players such as myself that derive no pleasure from trading, it is just a means to an end that detracts from what we would rather be doing in game. Both are valid play styles, and both should be available to everyone. At the end of the day, trying to pressure players into a certain behaviour by use of punitive measures, and force one style of play over the other on players will not be good for the game imho.
Grymmlocke said:A reasonable tax or fee should be all the incentive necessary. The players that enjoy face to face trading, and those that want to make the maximum profit possible will use that method. Those players that aren't concerned with squeezing every last copper out of a sale, and don't mind paying a bit for a less demanding process, will use that method. I don't think you give players enough credit. Those that see trading as another game within the game are going to play that way because they enjoy it. They don't need an incentive to do so. For players such as myself that derive no pleasure from trading, it is just a means to an end that detracts from what we would rather be doing in game. Both are valid play styles, and both should be available to everyone. At the end of the day, trying to pressure players into a certain behaviour by use of punitive measures, and force one style of play over the other on players will not be good for the game imho.
I agree. Point I was trying to make though is that he said tax would be something of a last resort, and I think it belongs there in the first place for all the reasons I previously stated.
Dullahan said:Grymmlocke said:A reasonable tax or fee should be all the incentive necessary. The players that enjoy face to face trading, and those that want to make the maximum profit possible will use that method. Those players that aren't concerned with squeezing every last copper out of a sale, and don't mind paying a bit for a less demanding process, will use that method. I don't think you give players enough credit. Those that see trading as another game within the game are going to play that way because they enjoy it. They don't need an incentive to do so. For players such as myself that derive no pleasure from trading, it is just a means to an end that detracts from what we would rather be doing in game. Both are valid play styles, and both should be available to everyone. At the end of the day, trying to pressure players into a certain behaviour by use of punitive measures, and force one style of play over the other on players will not be good for the game imho.
I agree. Point I was trying to make though is that he said tax would be something of a last resort, and I think it belongs there in the first place for all the reasons I previously stated.
I agree that having it in place at launch would be the best approach. I just don't want to see those taxes/fees to be so high that they become a punitive barrier to using that play style. I do like Brads approach of seeing how it plays in alpha/beta. Who knows how it will actually play out? Whatever course is decided, I just hope that both types of play are supported without favor towards one or the other.
Great point here. As a player who enjoys the person to person social trading, I've been convinced by you guys and Brad that an NPC vendor with a convenience penalty should be able accomidate both play styles without sliding into any extremes. We will just have to hash out the penalties in alpha and beta to make sure that 1) players that don't want to trade face-to-face aren't financially crippled by the convenience and 2) players that want to engage in face-to-face trading are sufficiently incentivized. If that critical monitary value of taxing which satisifed both previous points doesn't exist (which I suspect it does) we will just have to look at incorporating different penalties/incentives.
What if we geographical limit NPC merchants to city zones and add a cultural/faction restrictions to the sale of some specialized items where NPC vendors of Thronefast "refuse" to sell Dark Myr weapons? If you are a human and you want a sweet Dark Myr weapon, you'll have to find a traveling player merchant or have a buddy go buy that weapon for you. On the other hand, if you loot a Dark Myr weapon, but don't have access to the the Dark Myr city, you'll have to settle by selling it to a player trader. I think this would be neat.
I think crafting items, as well as needed reagents (and research items if that dynamic is in?) will be a substantial if not major driver of how the market is dynamic is established. Depending on how crafting is handled will determine what drives the market. along with basic neccessities (like bonechips, or silks)
I remember taking up tailoring and being frustrated in NOT being able to get at least 2 stacks of high quality pelts for a skilling session. And even then I had to purchase from a number of differen players, which was fun-.Paid top price.
Dullahan said:
That isn't the way it works in real life, and it isn't the way it will work in game. The idea that everyone will simply get used to taxes and thereby no one will utilize manual trading despite the considerable profit it offers just isn't supported by reality. People are driven by profit, and will find ways to avoid paying more if possible. The reason it didn't work in other games was mainly because taxes were too small and manual trade was simply too hard (due to low population or low value/high availability of items).
Well, to be fair, there is no Global AH in real life, so I wouldn't use it as a basis for argument. A global AH wouldn't take into account the numerous reasons why businesses go overseas or manufacture in other countries versus others to avoid taxes, Or, it wouldn't take into account import/export tariffs, etc. It also wouldn't take into account currency exchanges or exchange rates, etc. I'm not wanting to turn this into an economics argument though, I'm just stating that if you're arguing for realism with AH's a better proposal would be regional AH's that all used separate currencies with different taxes, tax rates, and if you wanted to import/export an item to a different AH there would be a tax, etc. I think it was Vandraad who's brought it up on these forums several times, but I really hope Pantheon at least gets an Economist as a part-time employee to help work on these systems - I really think the economy is that important.
However, I get your point, and would agree that if you make the tax large enough, there would be some who would choose to sell in person versus use an AH - but that tax would have to be nearly ridiculous I'd argue for it to accomplish what you'd want. I'd say at least a 10% listing fee that only lasts for 3-5 days and the AH takes at least a 40% cut of that sale.
Dullahan said:
The reason you cannot see this happening is because you aren't a trader. You've said you're an adventurer above all else, so it seems you aren't able to see the opportunity tax will provide for those interested in manual trade and wealth accumulation as a primary form of gameplay.
You're right my primary role isn't a trader, but I've done my fair share, and typically when I propose ideas I try to do it for the "Greater good" and not only for my benefit. Example being I want non-instanced raids even though I almost guarunteed won't have the time to participate, even though, with instances it would be a possibility.
Also, I'd argue that the greatest opportunity cost in any equation for an MMO is time, and we've agreed on this on multiple occassions, which the component I'm saying you're overlooking with the taxes. I'd argue that time lost would outweigh money gained in nearly all scenarios outside of some of the major items (like a Fungi tunic). Let's say I'd sell an item for 5000 pp, and the AH takes a 50% cut of 2500. I could go back to Adventuring to make up that 2,500 versus running to the regionally dubbed trading area in person to try to /WTS the item for 5,000 and make full profit. It also doesn't take into account that there would be a a lot less in person player traders that would even be present to purchase your wares to since many (I'd argue most) would use the AH anyway, which would further add to time to sell an item.
Dullahan said:
Not only are these taxes realistic but also stimulate player trade while serving as a money sink and combat inflation.
I'd that taxes would be a benefit for a money sink and to combat inflation, but there could be many creative ways to do so.
TLDR: We mainly agree with the exception of the tax rates, and either way, it appears to be a moot point for now from reading Aradune's postings, so we'll see how it tests in alpha/beta. But I 100% agree, if there is no form of penalty at all for NPC traders, everyone will use them.
Dullahan said:Aradune said:I think the having your own merchant NPC that would sell your wares is a good compromise fitting in-between one extreme (everything is face to face, player to player) and the other extreme, a full on auction house. I will say that I'm leaning towards this being what we'll do. Of course, this doesn't stop player to player trades/sales.
And then some kind of list board, as you mentioned.
As for the EC Tunnel part of things, while I do think people will find areas once they learn the world, the routes, efficient ways to get from point a to point b, etc. and that there will be places that make sense to place your merchant minion NPC there, I don't necessarily agree that we'll get a repeat of EQ, e.g there will be only one of these. The way the world is being crafted, where the races are, the different continents, etc. I'm hoping we would see multiple spots.
If people are concerned that because of the merchants minions that no one will do player to player trades, 1. I don't necessarily agree but 2. if that turned out to be the case in alpha and beta, we could implement a tax or similar system to encourage face to face trades.
Anyway, that's where I pretty much sit at the moment.
Without some kind of ongoing fee for a stall, npc wages or a tax, I'm not sure how you will incentivize manual trade. Without a cost drawback, I believe Raidan's thoughts would actually be inevitable and players would simply take the easy way out. I really think there has to be something to encourage traditional trade from the jump.
One way to allow for this incentivization is limiting the locations where Merchant Minions can be placed. Face-to-Face trading can occur anywhere (even inside of dungeons I would imagine). So basically, shiny piece of gear just dropped and I can /WTS straight away instead of lug it back to my Minion.
Syntro said:Great point here. As a player who enjoys the person to person social trading, I've been convinced by you guys and Brad that an NPC vendor with a convenience penalty should be able accomidate both play styles without sliding into any extremes. We will just have to hash out the penalties in alpha and beta to make sure that 1) players that don't want to trade face-to-face aren't financially crippled by the convenience and 2) players that want to engage in face-to-face trading are sufficiently incentivized. If that critical monitary value of taxing which satisifed both previous points doesn't exist (which I suspect it does) we will just have to look at incorporating different penalties/incentives.
What if we geographical limit NPC merchants to city zones and add a cultural/faction restrictions to the sale of some specialized items where NPC vendors of Thronefast "refuse" to sell Dark Myr weapons? If you are a human and you want a sweet Dark Myr weapon, you'll have to find a traveling player merchant or have a buddy go buy that weapon for you. On the other hand, if you loot a Dark Myr weapon, but don't have access to the the Dark Myr city, you'll have to settle by selling it to a player trader. I think this would be neat.
I'm certain that some tweaking of such a system would be necessary, but I don't think it will be a difficult task. Obtaing a balance that allows all players to enjoy the game equally is a win all around.
I like your idea regarding geographical limits, and cultural/faction restrictions, but I would limit this to rare drop equipment and mats. Make it a special occurence that is worth any extra effort required. I think it would add a bit of flavour to the game, and give the player another option to consider. If you haven't noticed, I love having options. :)
There are ways to provide incentives for face-to-face and limitations on NPC vendors (beyond a simple 'tax')
A. Limitations : (possible suggestions)
1. Single NPC (initially) perhaps, of a specific race, gender, (backgrouns/ability?) etc. (must be chosen)
Forcing choice of a name/race/sex/background makes you bond with 'them'. Like a pet, this makes the playes less likely to consider them 'disposable' and so will focus on 'improving' the merchant they have rather than changing them like socks. I.e. If you picked a Human merchant and want her to sell in Myr, you can work on factions, pay extra 'city duty' or buy 'foreign merchant permits' for that city etc rather than chuck the human merchant and replace with a Myr .... then change again in 3 days.
2. The NPC is limited to non-KOS cities (your faction may bleed through over time).
The player can work on gaining access to cities for the merchant. You would certainly need to buy some 'basic' vendor permit, unless it was your starter town. Race/faction would affect how hard it is to get a permit in some cities... but the player can, perhaps, undertake faction work, quests etc to make this possible.
3. The cannot operate outside of a town/city market-place.
This ensures face-to-face is king for anywhere outside a town/city.
4. Operates in 'Normal' or 'Black' market, not both.
Where there are separate markets in larger towns, the merchant placement will only cover one (at least initially?). Black markets may allow selling of items prohibited by the city authorities, or by racial groups denied permit etc. In lieu of 'sales tax' there would be an 'introduction fee' and 'graft/bribes' as a tax.
5. Limited size 'cash box' - stops trading when it is full. (can upgrade?)
Without limitations, the vendor could continue with 'stacks' of items, perhaps even high values ones, ad infinitum. A limit on coin-capacity for a cash-box will put an upper limit on the merchant, forcing periodic visits to empty it *and* limiting the 'most expensive' thing that the merchant can sell. It also acts as a push towards selling lots of cheaper items, some middle-value items or only a few higher-value items.
6. Items are manually placed with the merchant
Forces you to move to the merchant periodically, or forces periodic movement of the merchant by you. This is critical for PvP server in particular.
7. Cash made is manually removed from the merchant.
Without this, a cash-box limitation won't work. It also allows the possibility of (later? / PvP ?) pickpocketing small cash (items for PvP?) from your stall.
8. NPC has wages taken out per day (may scale to his NPC 'level' ?)
Will put a damper on the world having a gazillion merchants selling nothing.
9. NPC pays city sales tax on items sold. Some items are restricted/banned by the City.
Acts as direct incentive for face-to-face trading for some categories of items.
B. Extension :
Once this system iis in place, it may be possioble to allow players scope to 'upgrade' aspects via siphoned exp, AAs, 'merchant tradeskill' etc. These may allow raising level of merchants, adding extra merchants, working in both regular and black markets, cash-box upgrades etc. None of these should remove the penalties completely though. Face-to-face should still have many advantages.
Thus, rather than merely having a bigger 'sales-tax' on NPC merchants, you can tailor the benefits of the system to ensure they are useful, but not the 'best' option. For EG, a limited cash-box size means players will need to go to the NPC and empty it periodically. It also means the NPC vendor would sell mainly lower value items to get the most out of it. As you upgrade (i.e. if you focus on 'trading' as a sort of crafting skill) you could increase the size of the box, allowing your merchant to sell for longer without your attention.
These NPCs should act like another crafting skill perhaps. Firing your NPC merchant (maybe to strop paying them, or in favour of a different race) should be the same as cancelling pottery to start up tailoring... it should start you back to square one. Perhaps cash box upgrades etc should carry over, but the idea should be to 'progress' your merchant (remember you choose race/sex/typs ... is he a stone merchant who you later get to specialise in gem appraisal? thus reducing tax on gems...) rather than have them 'disposable'.
By tweaking these benefits and limitations it should be possible to have them co-exist with face-to-face trading (no limitations).
Evoras said:There are ways to provide incentives for face-to-face and limitations on NPC vendors (beyond a simple 'tax')
A. Limitations : (possible suggestions)
1. Single NPC (initially) perhaps, of a specific race, gender, (backgrouns/ability?) etc. (must be chosen)
Forcing choice of a name/race/sex/background makes you bond with 'them'. Like a pet, this makes the playes less likely to consider them 'disposable' and so will focus on 'improving' the merchant they have rather than changing them like socks. I.e. If you picked a Human merchant and want her to sell in Myr, you can work on factions, pay extra 'city duty' or buy 'foreign merchant permits' for that city etc rather than chuck the human merchant and replace with a Myr .... then change again in 3 days.
2. The NPC is limited to non-KOS cities (your faction may bleed through over time).
The player can work on gaining access to cities for the merchant. You would certainly need to buy some 'basic' vendor permit, unless it was your starter town. Race/faction would affect how hard it is to get a permit in some cities... but the player can, perhaps, undertake faction work, quests etc to make this possible.
3. The cannot operate outside of a town/city market-place.
This ensures face-to-face is king for anywhere outside a town/city.
4. Operates in 'Normal' or 'Black' market, not both.
Where there are separate markets in larger towns, the merchant placement will only cover one (at least initially?). Black markets may allow selling of items prohibited by the city authorities, or by racial groups denied permit etc. In lieu of 'sales tax' there would be an 'introduction fee' and 'graft/bribes' as a tax.
5. Limited size 'cash box' - stops trading when it is full. (can upgrade?)
Without limitations, the vendor could continue with 'stacks' of items, perhaps even high values ones, ad infinitum. A limit on coin-capacity for a cash-box will put an upper limit on the merchant, forcing periodic visits to empty it *and* limiting the 'most expensive' thing that the merchant can sell. It also acts as a push towards selling lots of cheaper items, some middle-value items or only a few higher-value items.
6. Items are manually placed with the merchant
Forces you to move to the merchant periodically, or forces periodic movement of the merchant by you. This is critical for PvP server in particular.
7. Cash made is manually removed from the merchant.
Without this, a cash-box limitation won't work. It also allows the possibility of (later? / PvP ?) pickpocketing small cash (items for PvP?) from your stall.
8. NPC has wages taken out per day (may scale to his NPC 'level' ?)
Will put a damper on the world having a gazillion merchants selling nothing.
9. NPC pays city sales tax on items sold. Some items are restricted/banned by the City.
Acts as direct incentive for face-to-face trading for some categories of items.
B. Extension :
Once this system iis in place, it may be possioble to allow players scope to 'upgrade' aspects via siphoned exp, AAs, 'merchant tradeskill' etc. These may allow raising level of merchants, adding extra merchants, working in both regular and black markets, cash-box upgrades etc. None of these should remove the penalties completely though. Face-to-face should still have many advantages.
Thus, rather than merely having a bigger 'sales-tax' on NPC merchants, you can tailor the benefits of the system to ensure they are useful, but not the 'best' option. For EG, a limited cash-box size means players will need to go to the NPC and empty it periodically. It also means the NPC vendor would sell mainly lower value items to get the most out of it. As you upgrade (i.e. if you focus on 'trading' as a sort of crafting skill) you could increase the size of the box, allowing your merchant to sell for longer without your attention.
These NPCs should act like another crafting skill perhaps. Firing your NPC merchant (maybe to strop paying them, or in favour of a different race) should be the same as cancelling pottery to start up tailoring... it should start you back to square one. Perhaps cash box upgrades etc should carry over, but the idea should be to 'progress' your merchant (remember you choose race/sex/typs ... is he a stone merchant who you later get to specialise in gem appraisal? thus reducing tax on gems...) rather than have them 'disposable'.
By tweaking these benefits and limitations it should be possible to have them co-exist with face-to-face trading (no limitations).
The theory crafting is strong in this one. Another excellent post Evoras. As I have said before, you have an astute mind, and you always have interesting ideas. However, in this instance I must disagree with your proposal. Having a regional restriction of the NPC trader is fine. Just make them searchable so that a player can see where he needs to go to purchase the desired item(s), and allow them to tender the payment in advance so that the item(s) are reserved for them until they pick them up. Call it a form of escrow, and if they don't pick up their purchase within a reasonable time they forfeit the payment and the item(s) become saleable once again. This works in a twofold manner: 1) It encourages travel and helps keep the cities active. 2) It allows players to trade without needing to spend an inordinate amount of time doing so.
The rest of your proposal, while interesting, is contrary to the whole premise of having NPC traders. If your proposal where implemented it would just be another trading game within the game. There are a significant number of players, myself being one of them, that just don't want to have to spend a precious commodity, our time, micro-managing trade when we could be out exploring the world. Having an NPC with a reasonable tax or fee allows this. Anything beyond this seems punitive to me. As I have stated previously, the players that enjoy face to face trading and/or maximizing their profits don't require any further incentives. They will embrace this play style because it is fun and/or profitable for them. Those that would rather spend their time out in the world exploring and seeking adventure would rather pay that reasonable tax/fee to sell their goods and be on their way. Imposing any further demands on those that prefer this play style, outside of the reasonable tax/fee, seem punitive and aimed at discouraging this style of play. Both styles of play are equally valid, and should be equally as viable. Give players options to play the way they desire to play, and don't place impediments in the game that favor one style of play over the other. Just my 2cp.
Raidan said:Also, I'd argue that the greatest opportunity cost in any equation for an MMO is time, and we've agreed on this on multiple occassions, which the component I'm saying you're overlooking with the taxes. I'd argue that time lost would outweigh money gained in nearly all scenarios outside of some of the major items (like a Fungi tunic). Let's say I'd sell an item for 5000 pp, and the AH takes a 50% cut of 2500. I could go back to Adventuring to make up that 2,500 versus running to the regionally dubbed trading area in person to try to /WTS the item for 5,000 and make full profit. It also doesn't take into account that there would be a a lot less in person player traders that would even be present to purchase your wares to since many (I'd argue most) would use the AH anyway, which would further add to time to sell an item.
You're removing the time involved with the acquisition of the item from the equation. It would take you twice as long to make the money that someone selling manually would make the first time. If they were strictly farming and using traditional trade, within a week they'd be up on you by about 200% (assuming equal playtime), even with your convenience sales and pure grind. Farm time always exceeds sales time if you know what you're doing and farming the right items. A good trader lines up buyers before they even have the merchandise. =p
This does of course assume that at least a decent demand for the item existed, similar rarity and drop rates to EQ and the existence of places of commerce.
@Grymmlocke
What I was trying to suggest (albeit in a longwinded manner) was a form of '2-tier system'.
TIER-1.
CASUAL TRADERS (maybe 85% of players or more?)
If you just want to buy/sell your loot, just park your merchant in a city with your stuff on it and go back to adventuring. Go back and add stuff every so many days and collect any cash made at the same time. No need to invest time/effort into the merchant... the basic ons is searchable, has enough capacity for 'casual' trading PCs (both for stock and cash) and since not upgraded low wages bill + tax (nett effect is a 'sales tax' overall).
TIER-2
A. HEAVY TRADER (5% of players possibly)
This kind of character may want to invest time/effort in upgrading his merchant NPCs so he can have more of them, have thm located in cities with faction issues, or just near 'rare' or 'regionally unique' resources ('Northern Maple Trees' or some such). This does then become a bit of a 'game within a game' (as most trading in games does - consider EVE) but allows these sort of players who want to be heavily invested in trading to do so... just not at teh expense of anyone else.
B. HIGH-END VENDORS (perhaps 10% of players)
The guy trying to sell 'Aradunes Fiery Sword of OP-ness' or the Master craftsman will either be selling face to face (advertised via a market board) or using an NPC trader (probably have to upgrade one though). Low end stuff / crafting resources he will vendor through the merchant, high-end stuff directly.
Hope that sort of explains where I was coming from. A system that is almost 'fire and forget' pretty much for the vast majority of players (unless they luck out with uber loot or want face-to-face) and a 'deeper' system if they want to make the most of the economy.
I do like the idea of a trade board to advertise the wares I'm selling and to be able to look up the wares that I am interested in purchasing. Tha actual transaction should be done at the local shop where the I can place my wares for sale, or in my own home, where I can place my wares for sale. I do enjoy looking at the art, furnishings, trophies in anothers residence when I go to purchase items. I also enjoy displaying my own when they come to my home or shop when selling.
Quoted from Grymmlocke's post :)
Those that would rather spend their time out in the world exploring and seeking adventure would rather pay that reasonable tax/fee to sell their goods and be on their way. Imposing any further demands on those that prefer this play style, outside of the reasonable tax/fee, seem punitive and aimed at discouraging this style of play. Both styles of play are equally valid, and should be equally as viable. Give players options to play the way they desire to play, and don't place impediments in the game that favor one style of play over the other. Just my 2cp.
I disagree that both playstyles should be equally as viable. I think if one person invests more time into an element of an mmorpg, it's only sensible that they'll profit from doing this. In that sense I believe chucking stuff on a vendor npc and being off again shouldn't be rewarded as much. It should be viable, but with obvious disadvantages. Otherwise most people will opt for this option, not simply because they prefer it but because it is both more convenient and efficient and you'd be silly not to use it.
The interesting thing to me is that I couldn't care less about trading, I've never had the patience for playing the market. Anything that would make selling and buying very convenient should be high on my list but it isn't. The chances of making it an impersonal number game again are quite big when I look at some of the solutions. While if it's tied to personal time investment (I really liked your post on the npc vendors btw Evoras, you made the whole concept much more attractive to me :)) and incentivizes personal contact between players one way or another, it won't run that risk as much.
I think the main thing is that some regard trade truly as a feature of the game while others simply see it as an obstacle that needs to be taken. To me it seems like it has much potential for fun and engaging gameplay even if it isn't necessarily your cup of tea. I won't profit from it in gold but I hope the game itself will profit from a more social experience.
Evoras said:@Grymmlocke
What I was trying to suggest (albeit in a longwinded manner) was a form of '2-tier system'.
TIER-1.
CASUAL TRADERS (maybe 85% of players or more?)
If you just want to buy/sell your loot, just park your merchant in a city with your stuff on it and go back to adventuring. Go back and add stuff every so many days and collect any cash made at the same time. No need to invest time/effort into the merchant... the basic ons is searchable, has enough capacity for 'casual' trading PCs (both for stock and cash) and since not upgraded low wages bill + tax (nett effect is a 'sales tax' overall).
TIER-2
A. HEAVY TRADER (5% of players possibly)
This kind of character may want to invest time/effort in upgrading his merchant NPCs so he can have more of them, have thm located in cities with faction issues, or just near 'rare' or 'regionally unique' resources ('Northern Maple Trees' or some such). This does then become a bit of a 'game within a game' (as most trading in games does - consider EVE) but allows these sort of players who want to be heavily invested in trading to do so... just not at teh expense of anyone else.
B. HIGH-END VENDORS (perhaps 10% of players)
The guy trying to sell 'Aradunes Fiery Sword of OP-ness' or the Master craftsman will either be selling face to face (advertised via a market board) or using an NPC trader (probably have to upgrade one though). Low end stuff / crafting resources he will vendor through the merchant, high-end stuff directly.
Hope that sort of explains where I was coming from. A system that is almost 'fire and forget' pretty much for the vast majority of players (unless they luck out with uber loot or want face-to-face) and a 'deeper' system if they want to make the most of the economy.
I get what you're saying, but I tend to see it a bit differently. Let me explain a bit using myself as an example. If I am out adventuring and collecting a lot of common mundane items I would just go to the nearest game controlled npc vendor and sell those item for whatever price he offers. It's those uncommon or rare drops that I would want to use a player controlled npc vendor to sell. I would want to receive a fair price after the tax/fee was deducted, but I wouldn't expect nowhere near what the player that puts in the time and effort for selling on a more intimate basis will receive. That would be representative of Tier 1 traders.
I regards to the Tier 2 players, I would say A & B are actually the same, it is just a matter of degrees in time invested. These are the players that relish trading and the building of merchant empires, and they use the one precious commodity that can't be bought, their time, to do so. This investment of time should be rewarded. If they are participating in face to face trades they should be able to sell at whatever price they can negotiate for themselves. Their profits will be solely based on what a given market will bear. My concern arises when those players begin using player controlled npc's. Having levels of npc's does add to the game within the game, but at what cost? Never underestimate the merchant class player. Those players will invest time and resources in maxing out their npc's, and I fear that some of them will find a way to monopolize the markets and prevent fair and equitable trade. There needs to be some mechanism in place to prevent this from happening. If there are no levels of npc's, and prices are limited to a min/max range set by the game itself, then the potential for abuse is limited. If a merchant class player opts to use the automated npc system to augment his sales and free up his time to spend on selling rarer goods on a one to one basis, I say go for it. But, let player controlled npc's be the same for all players. I think this would be the best approach imo.
Form the recent posts what I am absorbing (even thought it may not have been said), has me making associations with McDonalds and the reasoning for starting a breakfast menue. The Revenues were great for Dinner. To expand the revenues they opened for lunch. Then the thought was how do we get people in the restaurant (when it was still considered a restaurant and not a real estate company) when the restaurant is not open. Solution: Breakfast. And all other chains fell into place ( except for Wendy's?)
Look at this forums page. Essentially people are getting in the game, when the game is not open.
Why not, on this official Pantheon website (or future "official" pantheon website), have such a listing for all those auctioning or selling and where. Or would it have to be player organic like old Safehouse website for questing?.
Allahkazams charges a premium fee- Friends, Romans, Countrymen I come here not to make vague associations with a cash shop but to negate it.
The point is, it would make an avenue- maybe a standard advertising generating revenue like all websites that sell space for adds (I mean ads)-
For players to go in the game when not playing the game.
Lets face it I'm at work and can't wait to get home to play some Panth (not pants, heh) and I am in the mood for crafting, or looking for what Shields are out there. I'll go online to the website and see who is selling what and where and dream of heading to those places to buy form those merchants when I get on. If they dont have it when I get on, so be it, alot can change in those hours between work and home.
Or as some had said, if a reserve or claim can be made- but the problem I see here is timing. Then the seller would have to wait for me ot buy, instead of selling their item as soon as possible and going out on adventure.
@Grymmlocke
ah! now I see what you are getting at! Mea Culpa ... I did indeed forget about potential abuse and the requirements for putting safeguards in place. You are right to point out that many modern games have more issues from market-rigging than from mere inefficiencies of the economic model. I will definitely have to put more consideration into the 'abuse' arguement in future.
SOLUTION?
Don't know yet! hehe. Not that I ever consider any of my posts are actually 'solutions, merely possible avenues for development. I do like the simple method though. I would certainly advocate using 'basic' NPC merchants during the entire Alpha, and possibly most of Beta too. With future extension built into the basic NPC merchant class, it would be possible to release and test the 'basic' model, then later look at what could be done to further develop it .... safely.
PS stopping a person/guild from cornering the market in a specific commondity is harder than you might think. Assuming you think it should not be possbile in the first place. It would require a much more detailed and closer look at how the market develops through alpha to beta, and how many hubs cropped up doing this.
-Evoras, Will get back to you after writing his last 5 lesson plans! :) ... maybe. If his brain is still working.
Evoras said:@Grymmlocke
ah! now I see what you are getting at! Mea Culpa ... I did indeed forget about potential abuse and the requirements for putting safeguards in place. You are right to point out that many modern games have more issues from market-rigging than from mere inefficiencies of the economic model. I will definitely have to put more consideration into the 'abuse' arguement in future.
SOLUTION?
Don't know yet! hehe. Not that I ever consider any of my posts are actually 'solutions, merely possible avenues for development. I do like the simple method though. I would certainly advocate using 'basic' NPC merchants during the entire Alpha, and possibly most of Beta too. With future extension built into the basic NPC merchant class, it would be possible to release and test the 'basic' model, then later look at what could be done to further develop it .... safely.
PS stopping a person/guild from cornering the market in a specific commondity is harder than you might think. Assuming you think it should not be possbile in the first place. It would require a much more detailed and closer look at how the market develops through alpha to beta, and how many hubs cropped up doing this.
-Evoras, Will get back to you after writing his last 5 lesson plans! :) ... maybe. If his brain is still working.
Sort of like a Gno-to-mat
Dullahan said:Raidan said:Also, I'd argue that the greatest opportunity cost in any equation for an MMO is time, and we've agreed on this on multiple occassions, which the component I'm saying you're overlooking with the taxes. I'd argue that time lost would outweigh money gained in nearly all scenarios outside of some of the major items (like a Fungi tunic). Let's say I'd sell an item for 5000 pp, and the AH takes a 50% cut of 2500. I could go back to Adventuring to make up that 2,500 versus running to the regionally dubbed trading area in person to try to /WTS the item for 5,000 and make full profit. It also doesn't take into account that there would be a a lot less in person player traders that would even be present to purchase your wares to since many (I'd argue most) would use the AH anyway, which would further add to time to sell an item.
You're removing the time involved with the acquisition of the item from the equation. It would take you twice as long to make the money that someone selling manually would make the first time. If they were strictly farming and using traditional trade, within a week they'd be up on you by about 200% (assuming equal playtime), even with your convenience sales and pure grind. Farm time always exceeds sales time if you know what you're doing and farming the right items. A good trader lines up buyers before they even have the merchandise. =p
This does of course assume that at least a decent demand for the item existed, similar rarity and drop rates to EQ and the existence of places of commerce.
Perhaps, I know when I went into farming mode in EQ, I'd get items pretty quickly whether solo or with a good group. But, you're right, if you already had buyers lined up - then the in person trader would make more. We'll see how it plays out.