| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
First of all a happy new year all and as I am heading out for a party after I post this I wont be responding till tomorrow :)
A lot has been said about SAD from the bandits side and the I am good and want to help out side. Time now for a merchants perspective.
I am not really wanting to talk strangely enough about the mechanics but the consequences and the reason I am posting it is to make my fellow merchants think about the SAD consequences more deeply.
here is the kicker for my thinking
A successful SAD, while good for an individual merchant on that one occasion is not good for merchants on the whole! Surprised? You shouldn't be it is simple economics.
Merchants make money by selling items or repairing items. The scarcer the item the more profit that can be made.
A successful SAD causes no damage nor does it remove any items from circulation by their being destroyed. In many cases the bandits will even disrupt the market by undercutting in order to shift their ill gotten gains more quickly.
While painful for the individual merchant at the time making them kill and loot you has the following effects. It removes 25% of the goods from the economy totally therefore inflating the prices a little due to scarcity. Attacking and killing uses consumables again removing them from the economy. Item wear also needs repair bringing us more money.
If prices start to rise in settlements due to banditry you can also be sure those settlements are going to notice and they will then take steps to eliminate the problem.
In the long run I believe we as merchants gain more by saying no to SAD's than we do by kowtowing to bandit tyranny. This then is a call to arms for merchants everywhere. JUST SAY NO!!! Our reward will be higher prices and laughter as the settlements drive the unwashed from the trade routes
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would argue that a successful SAD is not good for an individual merchant any more than an overdraft fee is good. It's nothing you need nor want as a merchant. Sure, it's better than losing 25% (maybe), but it's worse than simply delivering goods (and perhaps failing on your contract).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would argue that a successful SAD is not good for an individual merchant any more than an overdraft fee is good. It's nothing you need nor want as a merchant. Sure, it's better than losing 25% (maybe), but it's worse than simply delivering goods (and perhaps failing on your contract).
Delivery contracts, their successes or failures, have not been brought up as an issue yet. Thank you for adding that to this discussion.
To Pagan's point:
He is correct in that GW has not detailed the economics of what the bandits are actually stealing and what the bandits are actually doing with it once it is stolen.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It will always be preferable to me to fight for my property, win or lose, than to meekly surrender it.
With proper preparations I may even win some of the time. Other times, I may appear as an unattractive enough target to be avoided.
Every SAD that I accept will only encourage more, and a little bit of my self respect and enjoyment will drain away.
A well run settlement, good friends and contacts, sense to TAKE PRECAUTIONS, and a willfulness to Keep what I Hold is far more enjoyable play (IMO).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In all the trading I've done in Freelancer, I can say being hunted by both enemy soldiers and pirates really enhanced what was otherwise a dull point A to point B experience. Definitely there was a sense of thrill in Darkfall when I made it into town with a big load of loot, or in a Mortal when I made it up to a major city with a good started horse I had tamed. None of those games would be the same without those experiences. That's why I've supported the inclusion of a robbery mechanic in PFO, and am glad to see we have one.
However what made that experiences so meaningful was overcoming challenges and avoiding negative outcomes. When you do get robbed, that is a negative outcome. Pixels though it may be it represents time you spent to generate resources that you no longer have.
Every time I ran into friendly forces who gave me an escort, every time someone jumped in on my side and helped me out, every time I did the same for others it was an extremely positive experience. I can think of times that our entire diplomatic relation with another faction changed for the positive because I saved the bacon of one of their members.
It will always be preferable to me to fight for my property, win or lose, than to meekly surrender it.
That depends a great deal on how painful it would be for you to die. If you have very valuable property on you and are surrounded, you might think twice about that brave and noble statement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It will always be preferable to me to fight for my property, win or lose, than to meekly surrender it.That depends a great deal on how painful it would be for you to die. If you have very valuable property on you and are surrounded, you might think twice about that brave and noble statement.
This ain't going to be my first rodeo. I am aware that I may lose valuable "lootz" with such a stance. I am not saying that it is a choice for everyone, just for me and how I feel.
I won't change my feelings about it. I will protect extra valuable cargoes, extra well though.
I won't change my feelings about it. I will protect extra valuable cargoes, extra well though.It will always be preferable to me to fight for my property, win or lose, than to meekly surrender it.That depends a great deal on how painful it would be for you to die. If you have very valuable property on you and are surrounded, you might think twice about that brave and noble statement.
That dynamic is exactly what makes the SAD system more fun for everyone. There's a lot of systems which you can say: "Oh, I don't want to be on the losing end of that system, it shouldn't be there because it hurts my feelings."
But, what happens when the Developers take that to heart, and remove all those systems? You have WoW, or some other hand-holding candyland game that's doomed to mediocrity or failure.
Oh, I like the idea of the SAD system. Hell, I like the idea that I might get jumped and never offered a SAD.
It just needs a little balance so that it is not an overpowering mechanic with all reward and little to no risk.
Then it appears I've misunderstood. /debate
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Then it appears I've misunderstood. /debateOh, I like the idea of the SAD system. Hell, I like the idea that I might get jumped and never offered a SAD.
It just needs a little balance so that it is not an overpowering mechanic with all reward and little to no risk.
I think that is pretty much the feeling of the majority that post here. (possibly waaaay off base)
I think that is pretty much the feeling of the majority that post here. (possibly waaaay off base)Then it appears I've misunderstood. /debateOh, I like the idea of the SAD system. Hell, I like the idea that I might get jumped and never offered a SAD.
It just needs a little balance so that it is not an overpowering mechanic with all reward and little to no risk.
LOL. I might value your opinion more if you did.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
LOL. I might value your opinion more if you did.I think that is pretty much the feeling of the majority that post here. (possibly waaaay off base)Then it appears I've misunderstood. /debateOh, I like the idea of the SAD system. Hell, I like the idea that I might get jumped and never offered a SAD.
It just needs a little balance so that it is not an overpowering mechanic with all reward and little to no risk.
Absolutely top of my list: Achievements for 2014
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A successful SAD, while good for an individual merchant on that one occasion is not good for merchants on the whole! Surprised? You shouldn't be it is simple economics.
The obvious exception being when a merchant guild hires a company of bandits to harry other merchants or gatherers to keep a specific set of items or mats off the market. It could even be more targeted at a specific merchant group to try to negatively impact their profits in the hope it drives their prices up.
Though, it might be easier (and more expensive?) to just hire a mercenary company to kill the opposition over and over until they have no profits left.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the whole idea that banditry is good for the rest of the players revolves around the idea that the merchant will wish to hire an escort of player characters as guards and contracts with mercenary companies to counter the threat of predators.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think the whole idea that banditry is good for the rest of the players revolves around the idea that the merchant will wish to hire an escort of player characters as guards and contracts with mercenary companies to counter the threat of predators.
That and when settlements hire bandits to rob their rivals and bring the goods to them. GW has said they will ensure that no settlement is self sufficient. If the settlements feel that they can not advance themselves without either cooperating with each other or stealing from each other, the whole meaningful interaction desire will not be fully realized.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A successful SAD causes no damage nor does it remove any items from circulation by their being destroyed. In many cases the bandits will even disrupt the market by undercutting in order to shift their ill gotten gains more quickly.
I don't think it has been stated whether SADs will be for goods, coin or both.
I still think coin would be the best way to go, or possibly a trade window where the merchant can place both coin and items until the bandit is satisfied. (But in that case I think most bandits will demand only coin anyway so it would be implemented for nothing)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A successful SAD causes no damage nor does it remove any items from circulation by their being destroyed. In many cases the bandits will even disrupt the market by undercutting in order to shift their ill gotten gains more quickly.
I don't think it has been stated whether SADs will be for goods, coin or both.
I still think coin would be the best way to go, or possibly a trade window where the merchant can place both coin and items until the bandit is satisfied. (But in that case I think most bandits will demand only coin anyway so it would be implemented for nothing)
Regardless of whether the SAD is for coin or money it causes nothing to leave the system. Merchants are only advantaged when goods are actually destroyed.
SAD being for money is what bandits would love, nothing to transport when making a getaway and it can't be recovered from them even if you catch up to them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Another consideration is that if SADs are coin only and settlement banks are not magically connected then coin has to be carried, even if there is no physical representation. Doing it that way could enable a SAD mechanic where the bandit could not specify the amount of coin demanded except by specifying a percent of whatever coin the merchant happens to be carrying. The merchant can then decide based of real value the loss he faces when he mulls over the SAD demand. The bandit doesn't have to worry about hauling a hundred tons of cut stone and can skip weighted down only by a pound of gold. A consequence would be that each tradesman buying here and selling there would have a bank account in every settlement he trades with so that he can walk the roads with as little as makes sense for his mission.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Unless things have changed, coin is not deposited in inventory or storage. It is not really "carried" but more like held in a magical bank account which can be accessed from anywhere, any time.
Any character has access to all her money all the time but is never carrying it on her person, thus not going to lose it upon death.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Any character has access to all her money all the time but is never carrying it on her person, thus not going to lose it upon death.
Thus it's an excellent argument against SADs being in coin; one could never "reverse" the transaction upon bandit-death, if necessity forces you to pay and your friends catch up to them as little as a few minutes later. It'll be bad enough that bandit-death destroys a significant percentage of the payment, but coin would guarantee 100% loss.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Any character has access to all her money all the time but is never carrying it on her person, thus not going to lose it upon death.Thus it's an excellent argument against SADs being in coin; one could never "reverse" the transaction upon bandit-death, if necessity forces you to pay and your friends catch up to them as little as a few minutes later. It'll be bad enough that bandit-death destroys a significant percentage of the payment, but coin would guarantee 100% loss.
If bandits can only get items through SADs it would discourage small-time, independent bandits since I imagine they would have trouble finding a buyer for 100 stolen axe-handles. I guess they could salvage the axe handles for wood and then sell that but that would mean a bandit spends 5% of his time ambushing and 95% salvaging (which may require skills), transporting goods and playing the market. That's not how I envision the bandit life.
Unless you are part of a sponsored bandit group belonging to a settlement or kingdom. Then SADs would be very usable as a means to weaken enemy settlements or to stock up on cheap goods in your own settlement.
I'm all for sponsored bandit groups but I'd hate to see independent banditry being too much of a hassle to bother with.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have an idea for an economic solution to the points that Pagen has raised.
When loot is taken via robbery (SAD or by killing) the bandit takes the actual cargo. That cargo is tagged as "stolen goods" and can not be sold on the regular markets.
One of the features of the hideout is a "fence" or "chop shop" if you wish to think of it that way. The bandit brings the stolen goods to the hideout and there it is converted to coin. There is of course a certain amount of waste in the system, so the bandit is not getting 100% return on his/her loot.
This takes 100% of the stolen goods out of the regular market. It also requires that the bandits must have the resources or skills to haul what they have stolen themselves. That cargo is also vulnerable to being taken back or robbery from other bandits.
The "Victimized Flag" that the merchant receives applies to anyone who attacks them during that 20 minute period (except for feuds, wars, bounties, assassinations, death curses, etc.) The new attacker is the one that takes the double rep hit, not the original robber.
Does this lead to a coin faucet for bandits? Yes, but probably no more so than killing NPC mobs, which is also a coin faucet. Plus, GW can always tweak the "waste %" to adjust the faucet if needed.
This also eliminates a fake SAD as an exploit, because the transferred cargo would be tagged as "stolen". Being in possession of stolen goods would likely be a crime and thus the co conspirator would be tagged with the criminal flag. Few will be willing to be flagged for 1 unit of cargo.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bluddwolf,
Do you then prefer a system of SAD for items rather than for coin? To me it makes sense that a travelling lupin merchant also carries coin and that bandits will ask for that coin rather than a truckload of lupins (unless you are Dennis Moore).
I like your idea of "stolen goods" though, if it is instead a "loot bag" containing "valuables" that translates to coin (with a sink) once back in the hideout. That would mean that "reversal of the transaction" would be possible and also that bandits have to go back to camp often to secure their gains.
In effect, the extorted coin is temporarily lootable in the form of a loot bag until the bandit has laundered the money back at the hideout/home settlement/whatever.
EDIT:
coin in the loot bag instead of items also has the advantage that you don't have to depend upon AI to determine the "value" of items. Something very valuable to the merchant could be near worthless at the fence and vice versa.
How does SAD'ing someone for loot even work? You inspect their inventory, and then tell them which items you desire? I assume that would be the only way.
Also, it makes more sense to me that robbers would ask for coin instead of loot. In real life, they can't lug a bunch of stuff around, it's just weird to give them loot. The only loot they might want I'd say would be small, valuable things, like gems.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Also, it makes more sense to me that robbers would ask for coin instead of loot. In real life, they can't lug a bunch of stuff around, it's just weird to give them loot. The only loot they might want I'd say would be small, valuable things, like gems.
And thus, we arrive at the invention of banking, which is how merchants solved the problem of transferring funds without having to carry "small valuable things, like gems."
Also, it makes more sense to me that robbers would ask for coin instead of loot. In real life, they can't lug a bunch of stuff around, it's just weird to give them loot. The only loot they might want I'd say would be small, valuable things, like gems.And thus, we arrive at the invention of banking, which is how merchants solved the problem of transferring funds without having to carry "small valuable things, like gems."
Yea, that makes sense to me. Make the coins which the SAD'ers rob to be lootable, until they get to an NPC "Bank", at which point the coins are put in with the rest of the normal "invisible" bank which players always have access to.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Make the coins which the SAD'ers rob to be lootable, until they get to an NPC "Bank", at which point the coins are put in with the rest of the normal "invisible" bank which players always have access to.
I'm a merchant. I am heading to Lumbertown, and the road is dangerous and full of bandits.
My caravan wagons are full of 100 pound iron ingots, and the contents of my purse is a carved token that reads "1,000 gold marks payable only to Gaskon the Ironmonger."
You stop me on the road at knife point, and demand that I hand over my wealth.
Would you like a couple iron bars or a token with some carving on it? Because that's all I'm carrying.
Make the coins which the SAD'ers rob to be lootable, until they get to an NPC "Bank", at which point the coins are put in with the rest of the normal "invisible" bank which players always have access to.I'm a merchant. I am heading to Lumbertown, and the road is dangerous and full of bandits.
My caravan wagons are full of 100 pound iron ingots, and the contents of my purse is a carved token that reads "1,000 gold marks payable only to Gaskon the Ironmonger."
You stop me on the road at knife point, and demand that I hand over my wealth.
Would you like a couple iron bars or a token with some carving on it? Because that's all I'm carrying.
I wasn't saying people shouldn't have the option to loot gear, if that's what you were implying.
I was just offering a suggestion for how coins could work, and pointing out that MOST bandits would probably prefer the light-weight valuable coins over big staves and swords (or even iron bars).
And if you're going to be adventuring on a road you know to be filled with bandits, it would be wise to not leave home without any toll money, as in the scenario you're suggesting, you'd probably be killed. If I was a bandit, I wouldn't let you live after such a slight.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Any character has access to all her money all the time but is never carrying it on her person, thus not going to lose it upon death.Thus it's an excellent argument against SADs being in coin; one could never "reverse" the transaction upon bandit-death, if necessity forces you to pay and your friends catch up to them as little as a few minutes later. It'll be bad enough that bandit-death destroys a significant percentage of the payment, but coin would guarantee 100% loss.If bandits can only get items through SADs it would discourage small-time, independent bandits since I imagine they would have trouble finding a buyer for 100 stolen axe-handles. I guess they could salvage the axe handles for wood and then sell that but that would mean a bandit spends 5% of his time ambushing and 95% salvaging (which may require skills), transporting goods and playing the market. That's not how I envision the bandit life.
Unless you are part of a sponsored bandit group belonging to a settlement or kingdom. Then SADs would be very usable as a means to weaken enemy settlements or to stock up on cheap goods in your own settlement.
I'm all for sponsored bandit groups but I'd hate to see independent banditry being too much of a hassle to bother with.
A small time independent bandit shouldn't be ambushing and looting what he can't get rid of. A hideout will give you access to some information about what the merchant may be carrying. I would expect bandits to look and go "Axe handles? Pah no use maybe we should wait for the next caravan"
Why in addition would bandits be able to only get items with SAD's? They can visit a market and buy the stuff they have been unable to rob.
As to Bluddwolf's suggestion about goods being turned into coin at the hideout frankly a poor idea. The game should have no npc vendor's you can sell things to because it directly impacts on the whole economy by placing a floor on the price of some goods.
Axe handles price have been dropping like a stone....no worries just pm your nearest friendly bandit to goto the npc vendor for you. He gets reputation for the sad and you get more coin than the current market price.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Pagan,
My idea is converting (destroying) the stolen goods, in exchange for a portion of their value (reduced based on % of waste of fencing).
If you claim that this creates a gold faucet, it in fact does, and is no more of one than grinding PVE content for gold. The difference is, PVE grinding for gold, does not at the same time remove items from the market place nor does it give incentive to hire guards.
As you said before, SADs don't remove items from the market so they have no economic impact. My system would provide economic impact, that would benefit the merchants that did not get pulled over by bandits.
Also, by tagging the goods as stolen, the only place to get rid of them would be a hide out. Add to that, if possessing stolen goods is a crime, the 1 copper piece SAD will not be exploited unless it is not against the law or unless the participant is willing to be tagged a Criminal for using the exploit.
It also elevates the hideout to a necessity for a bandit group, increasing their risk. Bandits will never be truly "naked" if they have a hideout that can be discovered, looted, taken over or destroyed.
Bandits will have top consider what they can and can not haul away when they do attack a caravan. They may have to train some of the very same skills that merchants have to operate caravans themselves.
The merchants then gain the "Victimized Flag" that applies to any future bandit (during the 20 minutes), not just those that SAD'd them. Any attack will result in double reputation loss for the attacker, not the original bandits. This way you don't have alts violating your own Victimized Flag to hit the original bandits with a rep hit.
All of this leads to a much more realistic, and meaningful interaction that is the Bandit vs. Merchant interaction.
@ Pagan,
My idea is converting (destroying) the stolen goods, in exchange for a portion of their value (reduced based on % of waste of fencing).
If you claim that this creates a gold faucet, it in fact does, and is no more of one than grinding PVE content for gold. The difference is, PVE grinding for gold, does not at the same time remove items from the market place nor does it give incentive to hire guards.
As you said before, SADs don't remove items from the market so they have no economic impact. My system would provide economic impact, that would benefit the merchants that did not get pulled over by bandits.
Also, by tagging the goods as stolen, the only place to get rid of them would be a hide out. Add to that, if possessing stolen goods is a crime, the 1 copper piece SAD will not be exploited unless it is not against the law or unless the participant is willing to be tagged a Criminal for using the exploit.
It also elevates the hideout to a necessity for a bandit group, increasing their risk. Bandits will never be truly "naked" if they have a hideout that can be discovered, looted, taken over or destroyed.
Bandits will have top consider what they can and can not haul away when they do attack a caravan. They may have to train some of the very same skills that merchants have to operate caravans themselves.
The merchants then gain the "Victimized Flag" that applies to any future bandit (during the 20 minutes), not just those that SAD'd them. Any attack will result in double reputation loss for the attacker, not the original bandits. This way you don't have alts violating your own Victimized Flag to hit the original bandits with a rep hit.
All of this leads to a much more realistic, and meaningful interaction that is the Bandit vs. Merchant interaction.
Because NPC vendors even at a reduced price impact on market economics by setting floors for prices. I said this in my original post. Decius Brutus has said. I have now repeated it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If the merchant was expecting to sell their cargo at the destination, why shouldn't the bandit (or his fence alt) be able to do the same?
Because that does not have an economic impact on supply, it just changes who is selling it. Plus, the bandit is going to undercut the prices on the market to get a quick fist full of coins, hurting the value of that item on the market.
The point of my idea is to remove the item completely from the market while still transferring some of the value (minus waste of fence) to the bandit.
It also prevents the exploit of SADing your own cargo, because it will be tagged as stolen, and can only be fenced. By tying fencing to hideouts, the system makes the hideout an integral part of banditry and this as I explained above increases the risk to the bandits.
The hideout becomes the equivalent of a free-standing POI, and a potentially very valuable and expensive resource to have to replace.
If the merchant was expecting to sell their cargo at the destination, why shouldn't the bandit (or his fence alt) be able to do the same?Because that does not have an economic impact on supply, it just changes who is selling it. Plus, the bandit is going to undercut the prices on the market to get a quick fist full of coins, hurting the value of that item on the market.
The point of my idea is to remove the item completely from the market while still transferring some of the value (minus waste of fence) to the bandit.
It also prevents the exploit of SADing your own cargo, because it will be tagged as stolen, and can only be fenced. By tying fencing to hideouts, the system makes the hideout an integral part of banditry and this as I explained above increases the risk to the bandits.
The hideout becomes the equivalent of a free-standing POI, and a potentially very valuable and expensive resource to have to replace.
1) This thread is not about the effects on poor hard done by bandits, there are many threads like that already this is a discussion from the merchant perspective not the bandits or the vigilante
2) Your idea as has been pointed out is exploitable and I can sell rep to bandits
3) Your idea introduces NPC vendors to buy gear which has an impact on the whole market and sets a floor on prices
4) There are only 3 meaningful decisions bandits have to make
a) can I win
b) can I transport the goods I steal
c) can I use or manage to sell what I steal. Your suggestion removes two of these and basically reduces your risk to can I win.
You want easy mode banditry I appreciate but don't expect the rest of us to agree.
I actually like the idea of stolen goods being flagged as Stolen Goods. It seems like it would create an opportunity for some merchants to train Fence skills that would allow them to remove/reduce that flag.
I am not concerned about the stolen goods flag merely the convert it to gold at the hideout bit
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I actually like the idea of stolen goods being flagged as Stolen Goods. It seems like it would create an opportunity for some merchants to train Fence skills that would allow them to remove/reduce that flag.
I'm not a huge fan of the stolen good requiring a fence. That just means each bandit gang has a tame fence among its riders. Goods would be passed thru that rider almost immediately. I'd think the idea of a merchant as a fence wouldn't be used often.
I could see the use of a 'stolen' flag on items that lasts some amount of time. Effects might include:
- Stolen items can't be threaded until the flag expires. (So they drop and can be recovered if the bandit is killed, unless destroyed in combat.)
- Stolen items flags can be seen if the holder's inventory is inspected/searched. (By hideout or other similar mechanisms.)
Of course this could all be the experiment of a Mastermind Merchant with the aim of bending public opinion and actions to his personally profitable Master Plan.... :)
That would indeed be a very evil merchant and as I am sure all us merchants know we are all upstanding pillars of the community and therefore can't possibly be scheming evil masterminds
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am a fan of the 'Stolen Goods' flag, however, just as in life, there should be a few avenues available to move/sell these.
The first would be to pay a 'fence' to remove the flag on the item so it can once more be sold on the open market. The second would be to recycle the good to their base components (at a loss). The base components would not be flagged and could be used or sold as desired. The third would be to take stolen components and craft them into something. Again, the new item would not be flagged as stolen and could be sold.
Stolen goods can't be threaded and are easily identified as stolen. Carrying/using a stolen item would be illegal in most civilized areas.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Sintaqx I like your ideas, but I think that carrying stolen items should be possible; even if it were illegal they shouldn't flag the carrier. The criminal flag should only be applied when the inventory was inspected and the item is discovered or the player was flaunting possession by carrying/wearing it openly.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Could have a 'fence' skill enabling the buyer of stolen goods to remove the 'stolen' flag. In doing so he gets the 'smuggler' flag against the settlement the stolen goods belonged to. Then he just needs to carry those goods to an opposing faction that he has an 'in' with to sell it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Of course this could all be the experiment of a Mastermind Merchant with the aim of bending public opinion and actions to his personally profitable Master Plan.... :)That would indeed be a very evil merchant and as I am sure all us merchants know we are all upstanding pillars of the community and therefore can't possibly be scheming evil masterminds
Absolutely! It was just a random thought from a suspicious little mind. :)
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like the idea of a stolen goods flag, but not a trainable 'fence' skill to ignore the flag. Rather, have stolen goods non-marketable at lawful locations.
Plus, the economic effects certainly apply: when a bandit takes one out of every ten hats delivered along a route, it has the effect of raising the cost of delivering a hat to market by one-ninth. If demand is inelastic, then margin is also constant, and prices rise by 11%, even if the bandit unloads those hats at a steep discount in the same market.
If demand has an ordinary price elasticity, then prices would raise somewhat less than 11%, exactly the way they would if there was a price increase in materials.
Again, the simplifying assumptions involved are probably not true in any specific real case; in particular, it is unlikely that banditry will intercept a significant percentage of total shipments, and price inertia will resist efficient pricing.