Cookies Disclaimer

I agree Our site saves small pieces of text information (cookies) on your device in order to authenticate logins, deliver better content and provide statistical analysis. You can adjust your browser settings to prevent our site from using cookies, but doing so will prevent some aspects of the site from functioning properly.

All posts created by Flari-Merchant

@ Bob

I am not commenting positively or negatively on the issue but I can't stay away. From the above explanation it sounds like you should take a look at what exactly this "loot" cycle that you are concerned about adventurers having an easy time converting to coin and getting their replacement gear, whether to replace broken or to upgrade because of advancement.

Look at the actual "cycle" that goes on between adventure, dispose of by selling, buy new gear, adventure, repeat. Look at what "loot" is. You play yourself. What kind of "loot" do you get and what do you do with it? I get coins, I get tokens, I get an occasional recipe/expandable and I get a little bit of salvageable materials. I get very little actual ready raw mats. That is what drops.

What do I do with it? I bank the coin. I bank the recipes and give or trade them to mates. I bank the salvage an lil bit of ready mats so that I have them for my own crafters and for when I ask to have an item I need crafted by another. This, I believe, is fairly typical server wide. Could be wrong but I doubt it.

This is how the economic cycle has developed here. It is different, a bit, than the cycle in most MMOs and the cycle that was envisioned for this game. That may be because the pop is low, because most characters are super developed at this point(crafter wise) or who knows but it isn't your typical materials cycle that supports AHs. When I ask a crafter to make me a piece of gear he asks for materials as payment. He does not, almost 100%, ask me for coin. There is a little bit of the crafting and selling for coin that goes on, but not nearly enough that you need be concerned about a loot cycle like you have written here about.

I suggest much less coin dropping and much more salvage and raw material if you want a cycle that is closer to the one envisioned.
An AH setting that allows lower grade materials to be included as buyable on Bid orders. Like I might accept all grades of Tansey leaves with a single buy order.

I long ago filed a feature request for something along these lines, and ideally for being able to place bids and view offers by stocks instead of by specific item. Just haven't been able to get it to the top of the priority list. If the lack of it is causing lots of you problems, let me know and we'll see about bumping it up.
Well it is causing convenience problems for sure. A bid buyer has to put in multiple bids at varying grades and that is bothersome, though I have done it when I had the patience. A seller may want to sell his tansy, but it is just a grade too wilted. He can list it and an attentive buyer will notice. I suppose it is mainly a bid buyer's inconvenience. Certainly worth checking out if you have the time.

It was mentioned today in Gen chat and struck me as a good point.
This is off topic so doesn't count ;P

An AH setting that allows lower grade materials to be included as buyable on Bid orders. Like I might accept all grades of Tansey leaves with a single buy order.
I have a question and then I will fall silent on this subject as well as the other that I promised to stop posting in.

Have any of the Dev team tried the life (in this game) of playing The Merchant? The cycle of gathering and refining and crafting, to sell, or trying to fill some of those aspects of the cycle with AH purchasing? I doubt that you have because it is very time consuming and you have none to spare.

If you have, you would immediately understand that it is not easy nor does it really feel rewarding at this point for the effort. Creating an atmosphere with hundreds of more places to have to travel to will not improve things.

If I am right and you have not tried this for a decently lengthy period, why will you not give serious consideration to those who do play that type in THIS GAME? Forget other games with larger populations. These proposal may be fine for games with large pops. Just not here and now.

Look at the feed back in the "For Lack of an AH" thread. These days, how often do you get that much negative feedback across all spectrums of player groups? Implementing Holding selling will just be a terrible idea on top of AHs for all. I am not saying that the whole game will immediately collapse. I am saying that it will damage the economic play of the game and make it less than it could be. It is counter intuitive to AHs being important. It is counter intuitive to Premium Player Housing and I don't even own one.

Now I am done here too.
Its just low population and out of proportion upkeep requirements (for the low population) in all from building to support to war and to just existing. There are not enough players available in any one company to fill all those needs at the moment. We hop to fill those spots for short times to make those costs/body numbers.

Ideally, we shouldn't have to…
I think that many of us sometimes forget that it is a game. Including the Devs because they feel pressure from the pop to make everything accessible to ALL. Even though, as you mention, SCARCITY is exactly what a game needs.

I know that in the case of simple Pine, I was very vocal that I could not find it anymore when I suddenly really needed it to build settlement structures. They are under constant pressure to make that happen. Finding the perfect balance is the real hard part.
As far as I see it, the real issue was just simply that "Black" and probably Shadowskin? were too limited in the two and one spots that they were available. And yes, a sledge hammer (or wrecking ball if you like) were used to adjust ALL THINGS. Just as fixes usually are implemented, it swung WAY too far toward over correction. The lower Tier mats have always been both too numerous in both location and spread. It widens the gathering opportunities way too wide except for a few select spots like pine which is now "better" after it was with the correction.

Not surprised really. It had to be done in a way that did not look like a punishment singly against the SE for their location and luck of geography.
This looks like a good incentive to upgrade AHs.

I would like to see in the future at least three player run regional AHs in competition for business and providing services unavailable in NPC AHs.
I think that would be alright.

I am not sure if this will get through or not as it has never been directly addressed by The Devs, or I have forgotten their responses but the issues with the economy are not as terrible as I have thought. They are more like a mix of what I have been saying and others have been responding. Largely Edam of Keeper's Pass.

To be clear:
After a few months of real trying, I have found that there is less wrong with the economy and more right than I have previously felt.
1. The economy is ALIVE. If you gather/craft and post materials on the AH, they do sell.
2. THE PROBLEM IS THAT HARDLY ANYONE DOES. I think this is because of a combination of A. no one needs COIN and B. most basic materials can be found locally and readily.

I should add that (IMO) it makes perfect sense. If I need Iron and Coal for some project I can find enough close by for just about any situation. Will I just then mine Iron and trade my excess to buy Coal on some AH? No, because I can get it close to home and it is about the same effort to gather both myself rather than NOT having both nearby and having to hope a nearby AH has one of them for sale.
Why though build a system to try and concentrate economic activity in areas that players will endeavor to build up, only to turn around and diffuse it back to even more scattered than it is now?

We still want economic activity to be concentrated, and definitely want Auction House upgrades to help drive activity to particular settlements. We're just concerned that there may be some base level of offline item sales that's more essential for supporting day-to-day gameplay for some player segments than we'd originally thought.

And are you not concerned that this will lessen the value of your Player Housing?

This was definitely a concern, though depending on exactly how we implemented any additional auction capabilities, the studios could still serve functions that some base-level capabilities wouldn't. For example, if you only had a +0 Auction House, you couldn't sell T2+3 and above stuff from your profession there, but you could at your studio. And if we restricted minimal auction capability (whether at holdings or Taverns or Black Markets or… ) to only non-upgradable items, then you'd still only be able to sell most crafted and refined items at studios wherever there isn't an Auction House. It's all in the details.
It looks like you are pretty set on this or at least my concerns are not enough to sway you. I'll leave it at the point that I really feel that you will diffuse the value of high level AHs as they do not sell nearly as much T3 materials/gear as they do/will as T2 and lower and that you will probably anger those that have invested in the premium Player Studio shops.

One player not in favor of this. This is Paizo's show though. I hope that I am wrong and it adds good things to the game. smile
Let's say that there were "sales" allowed at some holdings, trade posts alone would not be as bad as ALL, but would there be listing fee taxes like in regular AHs? If those proposed taxes are for companies, you are basically giving sellers a 10% incentive to sell only from holdings…