Goblin Squad Member
|
Having AHs disguised as a market place is a real disappointment, killing the fantasy atmosphere of the game. In EVE it makes sense, as the setting is past the Information Age. In Fantasy only setting, the Information Age is still very far away. Still to what happens in a Fantasy / Medieval setting, no stock exchanges, no auction houses, etc. Just good old travelling to the shops, looking at the items of ONLY that shop, where almost al prices listed are not fixed, generally bartering possible.
Yes, nothing can be done about out of game meta data tools and methods. Please just keep the Information Age out of the in game Fantasy Setting.
Frankly I don't see the programming complication of having only players shops with individual goods lists, to having a central AH goods list. They essentially have the same background components. There are many MMOs where there is only players and NPC shops that have individual good lists. So there frankly no excuse for getting rid of Information Age Auction Houses out of the in-game Fantasy setting. If the players want to have Information Age technologies, they can have it out of game using what ever methods they like. You never block meta-game information from existing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would like to support he idea of individual shops, which really means individual buildings which must be entered in order to transact. This will increase emersion and meaningful interaction.
A market(AH) may also be available but I would support two drags on that market.
1) A tax which went to the settlement, the tax could be set in a range, 5 and 90% say
2) A market charge, those NPC's need to feed their families too! This might be more in the region of the lessor of X (eg 100) gold coins or 5% per transaction.
These factors would drive people (particularly for smaller transactions)to the player run shops which would have their own overheads I imagine.
The cheapest deals would be got by buying items from errr.... less reputable source in back allies.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm sorry but the fantasy atmosphere , if there ever was one, was broken by the introduction of guns and the ability to travel to 20th century Earth and fight World War I technology.
At this point the lack of a system that let's you see what the prices are in a region ( not a system that let's you buy and receive without traveling, mind you ) would be simply for inconvenience. In the same way that moving you character with the game mechanics used in QWOP or Surgeon Simulator 2013 would be. There is a point where moving from game to simulation starts to make the game less fun and more inconvenient without adding any noteworthy immersion. And this would be it for me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Quick comment. a merchantile skill especially when it comes to a sandbox type of game, the skill should be associated with the number of items a merchant can sell at once. when skill increases to certain limit, the seller should be ably to sell more types of items as well. I also read in one of the posts that someone pitched for specialized shops. I suggest that only high-grade items can be sold in certain shops. that allows for someone to run a general store that sells alot of low cost stuff like cloth, and other various items.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
1. I agree with what Ryan said concerning buyer/seller info. Manipulating the markets just sounds to me like the rich becoming richer - too easily via greater capital & use of information, and by-passing of game systems.
2. I agree presence required at point of sale and transit of goods. I think movement of people and goods is going to be important/crucial part of territorial control and risk/reward and safe passage.
3. Eventually those specialist shops sounds great idea to me. :)
4. @DarkOneDrow: Agree, t'is a shame, but as mentioned, there's nothing that can be done about perfect information and instant communication (even Trek has instant comms - lol).
=
Curious how storage space will work also for goods and materials, as encumbrance is one limiter on transport of these? Will settlements have a total capacity and rent portions of this to traders/crafters etc and larger settlements more storage space maximum?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
First priority has to be getting the database to be responsive to hundreds of simultaneous global searches.
I am having a bit of trouble understanding how it could be that external information networks will give all that great of an advantage where you have hundreds of player vendors among dozens of settlements remote from one another where products and money are churning.
I don't believe for a moment I have done anything like complete analysis, especially since I don't have the full system to break down and interpolate, inferring expected outcomes and their consequences. I'll just have to accept that Ryan's team has done so and foresees sufficient downsides to recognize the better path forward.
After OE few will know any better anyway.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I still think that (at least further in the game development) we should only be able to see all prices, but need to go directly to the shops to buy the stuff. If stuff is cheap in other town ok go there and take it. That would be an acceptable middle term solution allowing a bit more of immersion.
Edit >>>> Maybe a market as Ryan intend to implement should work just for raw material and primary processed materials, but final products such as equipments, clothes, magic itens etc should be bought on shops?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ryan,
As community oriented as I am as a player, and as much as I understand your concern for eliminating true griefing behavior (though we've seen in other threads how varied the description of that can be), I must disagree with your two examples for why buyer and seller information cannot be seen.
As to the mechanics of an AH, if you use unseen NPCs as a reason for simulating the handling of market goods via an AH, why can't we equally say the ability to know a buyer or seller's name was passed from the market NPC to the buyer or seller?
"Hey Sam, did you get the name of the guy who bought my five longswords? You did? Good. And did you tell him who made them so he knows where to find as good a blade next time? You did? Excellent. Thanks for the help."
In a world where information does not zip along digitally and the community may (especially for these NPCs) be no larger than their own settlement walls, trade interactions would undoubtedly involve more banter - more opportunity for learning people's names. I understand that having some sort of automated, NPC-run AH helps players who aren't on when the seller may be present, but at least the buyer/seller could know each other through the same NPC's that you envision as running the AH. By not having player run shops where you actually meet your buyer/seller or at least know who they are, you reduce trade to a faceless exchange where customer loyalty and word of mouth advertising no longer exist. You remove the very character-to-character interaction you hope to increase with a sandbox atmosphere. If we're using these invisible NPCs to explain the "behind the scenes" actions of one game mechanic, why not the other?
My second and far larger concern is that both the examples you gave in your previous post sound like legitimate tactics in a player generated economy. Buying out your competition and reselling elsewhere does not at all sound like market griefing, nor should it be something that game mechanics are created to restrict. If you can afford to do it, it's smart market PvP. I worry that our real-world desire for the small business owner to make good, even against the corporate giants, will find the devs imposing restrictions on market PvP that they do not impose on battlefield PvP. AvenaOats' comment that " Manipulating the markets just sounds to me like the rich becoming richer - too easily via greater capital & use of information," seems like a desire to somehow constrain those organized enough to be rich and competitive (if that was not your intention, I apologize for the wrong interpretation). We would not hamstring the largest settlement's armies before attacking a smaller settlement simply to make the competition seem more fair, so why would we impose similar restrictions in the market place? In a true sandbox, every player has the opportunity to succeed, but not the assurance of success or even equality. A sandbox game is what you make of it, not what you may believe you're entitled to simply for paying a subscription fee. In our efforts to make the game fair, let us not make the game bland by its lack of competition, by the minimization of risk, and the possibility of defeat. This should apply to the market as much as it does to the wilderness or the battlefield.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My second and far larger concern is that both the examples you gave in your previous post sound like legitimate tactics in a player generated economy. Buying out your competition and reselling elsewhere does not at all sound like market griefing, nor should it be something that game mechanics are created to restrict. If you can afford to do...
IMO that sort of market tactics is no different than a blockage or cutting the enemy's line of supllies in a war. Looks legite to me, not grief.
Ryan,
As community oriented as I am as a player, and as much as I understand your concern for eliminating true griefing behavior (though we've seen in other threads how varied the description of that can be), I must disagree with your two examples for why buyer and seller information cannot be seen.
As to the mechanics of an AH, if you use unseen NPCs as a reason for simulating the handling of market goods via an AH, why can't we equally say the ability to know a buyer or seller's name was passed from the market NPC to the buyer or seller?
"Hey Sam, did you get the name of the guy who bought my five longswords? You did? Good. And did you tell him who made them so he knows where to find as good a blade next time? You did? Excellent. Thanks for the help."
In a world where information does not zip along digitally and the community may (especially for these NPCs) be no larger than their own settlement walls, trade interactions would undoubtedly involve more banter - more opportunity for learning people's names. I understand that having some sort of automated, NPC-run AH helps players who aren't on when the seller may be present, but at least the buyer/seller could know each other through the same NPC's that you envision as running the AH. By not having player run shops where you actually meet your buyer/seller or at least know who they are, you reduce trade to a faceless exchange where customer loyalty and word of mouth advertising no longer exist. You remove the very character-to-character interaction you hope to increase with a sandbox atmosphere. If we're using these invisible NPCs to explain the "behind the scenes" actions of one game mechanic, why not the other?
My second and far larger concern is that both the examples you gave in your previous post sound like legitimate tactics in a player generated economy. Buying out your competition and reselling elsewhere does not at all sound like market griefing, nor should it be something that game mechanics are created to restrict....
+1! Well said
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I like the idea of a tax added to transactions for AH's - a listing fee for the seller and a transaction fee for the buyer. After all, those NPCs running everything behind the scenes have to feed their NPC families. In short, if you want convenience in a sandbox game, it costs. If you want to take the time to actually browse the shops, meet the owners, etc., it doesn't.
I've said so in other posts, but I'll continue to say it - too much convenience in a game is often the death of player interaction. AHs become faceless catalogs. Gates/portals/teleport spells/recalling all make roads pointless. Chat channels eliminate the need for face-to-face communication. Global banks reduce the need to transport goods. All of these reduce travel which reduces player interaction, whether that interaction is spontaneous (meeting a fellow traveler) or opportunistic (bandits).
I know that by opposing convenience, I will tend to sound like some of the other old-timers who say "players have become too soft." First, I'm not the type who wants the game to be tougher just to weed out "lazy" players...I'm not that hot on self-inflicted grief (I lived through Vanguard's crafting system...ugh). But for those young enough to have never known anything but a WoW style game, you've likely never experienced how fun a true player-driven game can be. Not just a player based economy or plenty of PvP content, but player run shops, player created markets, and player organized/protected/assaulted caravans. Games like WoW turned all that fun player-to-player interaction into a faceless Auction House - turned the public square, the seedy back-alley bazaar, and the friendly neighborhood shop into the replicator in Star Trek...walk up and make your order. As Andius stated earlier, for some players, running your own living, breathing shop is their whole reason for playing. Very few games in the last decade have included anything for these players, let along their potential clients who desire more player interaction than an in-game e-bay screen.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I ran a harvested resource company in Rift where I specialized in selling things for less than AH prices. People liked the customer service I provided, the special deals, haggling, freebies, etc. It made me more cash than I could use in-game. I suppose those of us who love the face-to-face interaction will just have to do the same here until you supply us with shops. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Ryan,
I Think I can see what you are saying, but perhaps anonimity would best apply to commodites markets only, (one would rarely know who one was buying any commodity or equity from) For finished products I see little problem and several benefits re human interaction of identifying buyers and sellers.
With regard to your examples, if someone sees Bigvile Bob buying non commodity components for a seige train and draws the right conclusion, good on them. Perhaps they have drawn the wrong conclusion, perhaps he is going to onsell the seige train to Evil Empire for there own evil plans. Sounds litle meaning human interaction to me.
Smallville Dave will be extatic, he sold all his goods, in future he can put his price up in Samllville, making more profit with no more effort or, if he cottons on to what the buyer has done he can export his goods to the nearby location and sell them himself at the even higher price there.
Free markets are great like that but they do require perfect information to work.
Having AHs disguised as a market place is a real disappointment, killing the fantasy atmosphere of the game. In EVE it makes sense, as the setting is past the Information Age. In Fantasy only setting, the Information Age is still very far away. Still to what happens in a Fantasy / Medieval setting, no stock exchanges, no auction houses, etc. Just good old travelling to the shops, looking at the items of ONLY that shop, where almost al prices listed are not fixed, generally bartering possible.
Yes, nothing can be done about out of game meta data tools and methods. Please just keep the Information Age out of the in game Fantasy Setting.
Frankly I don't see the programming complication of having only players shops with individual goods lists, to having a central AH goods list. They essentially have the same background components. There are many MMOs where there is only players and NPC shops that have individual good lists. So there frankly no excuse for getting rid of Information Age Auction Houses out of the in-game Fantasy setting. If the players want to have Information Age technologies, they can have it out of game using what ever methods they like. You never block meta-game information from existing.
In my experience, MMOs that have player-run shops work because of a handful of cities that centralize those shops. It's easy to walk up and down a big city street and browse 150 player shops. It's not so easy to walk out to 250 individual hexes and browse 5-10 shops per hex.
Personally, I've experienced those games. RO, FFXIV, DAOC, all had player shops. I liked them. They give you AMAZING insight into the going price on just about ANY item. Just by subjecting yourself to every shop, trying to track down that 1 item or deal you're looking for.
EDIT: the one problem you do notice with a system like this is when the population dwindles down and the market is too sparse to sustain trade of all goods.
But I don't see that working in PFO because the distance and number of settlements far outweighs the number of shops. EVE's system works a lot better even if 'the information age' doesn't fit with RP. And the points about data gathering apps/alts/forums will still shatter the illusion that this isn't an information age.
--
Having commented on past discussions, I'd like to ask everyone here about something I haven't seen raised (maybe I missed it earlier):
How are markets going to be handled in regards to alignment?
If players are going to have the ability to see other market listing for settlements in other hexes, will they still be able to access those markets dispite having a conflicting Alignment? If a LG player buys something from a market that operates out of a CE settlement, will that payer be able to go collect their items? Is this prevented by players not being able to see markets in settlements that conflict with their alignment? Will skills allow them to view these restricted settlements? Will neutral aligned players have free passage into any settlement? Has there been any discussion about that?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In my experience, MMOs that have player-run shops work because of a handful of cities that centralize those shops. It's easy to walk up and down a big city street and browse 150 player shops. It's not so easy to walk out to 250 individual hexes and browse 5-10 shops per hex.
Perfectly said, when we have 1 - 3 towns were the trading is concentrated it works fine, PFO is not the case.
How are markets going to be handled in regards to alignment?
If players are going to have the ability to see other market listing for settlements in other hexes, will they still be able to access those markets dispite having a conflicting Alignment? If a LG player buys something from a market that operates out of a CE settlement, will that payer be able to go collect their items? Is this prevent by players not being able to see markets in settlements that conflict with their alignment? Will skills allow them to view these restricted settlements? Will neutral aligned players have free passage into any settlement? Has there been any discussion about that?
Excelent question! I would like to have an input on that subject too.
IMO We need at least to pick the stuff we bought in the original town were it is being sold . So that would be a problem to go to different aligne towns.
Ok, I have my coffee here and I'm jumping right in to round 2 on my take on some of the other discussions here....
To the people who oppose the EVE-like market system or even just an AH system in general: Yes, centralized markets can somewhat ruin the person-to-person interaction by reducing the entire process to a browser interface - but in my experience the player run shops didn't offer much in that regard either. Mainly because most players only ran their shops when they were afk/sleeping. If they were ever actually at the computer, they were off adventuring instead of running a shop (presumably collecting items to later sell when they aren't actually playing).
I also think some people too easily dismiss the fact that even with an EVE-like market, players still must:
-Journey out to the market they found (easier said than done)
-Have enough inventory/encumbrance to collect their purchase (easier said than done)
-Return home with their purchase (easier said than done)
And with that last bullet in mind, it gives credence to Ryan's reasoning behind masking buys/sellers.
It would be so easy to bait out a merchant by listing large quantities of a commodity at an intentional below-market price. When a player buys it and you can see their name, all you have to do is wait for them to show up and depart. Follow that person out of the settlement, and then either perform a S.A.D, or simply kill them and loot the inventory back anyway.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It is then incumbent upon those of us who believe that face-to-face trade is more fun and still profitable to demonstrate by example. Once the game is up, I'll happily take that challenge. :)
If we were given that option I would be happy to join you, but from the sounds of it it doesn't look like we'll get that chance.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It may well be that is a small town that there are only two or three stores. The owners will do it because either they enjoy it, it is profitable or both.
But remember that some settlements are anticipated to grow to player populations in the thousands, not like wow where the entire server population is in the order of 2,500. I don't see scarcity of customers being an issue.
There will be an AH and players people can use that if they choose to and I understand if these are the only markets available when EE launches. I would like to see the palyer run option available to run along side the AH's. As I said above the AH transactions should incur some sort of significant charges on the transactions.
I envisage player run bazaars which will centralise in centres of commerce, these would spontaneously occur due to proximity to buyers, resources and other bazaars of significant size as well as local tax/overhead rates.
It maybe that a bazaar could transitory, being in one settlement for a few days then another a few days later. They may have their own guard and local authorities may either be paid to or of their own volition (obviously there are tolls and taxes at stake) send out guards to protect this moving treasure trove.
All very exciting possibilities.
How are markets going to be handled in regards to alignment?
If players are going to have the ability to see other market listing for settlements in other hexes, will they still be able to access those markets dispite having a conflicting Alignment? If a LG player buys something from a market that operates out of a CE settlement, will that payer be able to go collect their items? Is this prevented by players not being able to see markets in settlements that conflict with their alignment? Will skills allow them to view these restricted settlements? Will neutral aligned players have free passage into any settlement? Has there been any discussion about that?.
If adjacent settlements aren't of opposing alignments, I would think they could see each others market items. If the settlements alignments are opposing, I would think their knowledge of each others markets would be hazy at best. No telling if GW would use such logic though, they might just make all the data available.
If you can see their market data, you should be able to place a buy order, but taking delivery might pose a problem if the players alignment isn't welcome in the settlement where the goods are. This is actually a good usage for a disguise mechanism as mentioned in other threads.
I would advocate a lessening in, either the quality of information, or the total amount of information between settlements who's alignments are opposite. It will make things more difficult in a good way, a way that RP and player interaction can work to solve the problems.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... model "information" as an in-game object which must be possessed by the character in order for the character to act upon it...Now that sounds like an intriguing idea. However it obviously goes right to the core of the game and pretty much every single mechanic would have to take it into consideration, but intriguing nonetheless, and would allow all kinds of emergent behaviours. I don't suppose you have somewhere a more-developed concept of this idea?
Yes, it really has to be integrated at the very core. And no, I'm sorry, I don't have a better write-up of it anywhere...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am very much against the global auction house. I think local markets (an IRL too I guess, at least for food) cause a much more interesting economy. I would like to see a trading post that settlements can build where there is a local auction house, but a global exchange make a boring economy.
I would like to see a system in place that lets well connected settlements acquire information about prices of items in other nearby settlements.
In EVE, you could see the price everywhere all at once, and while that made sense for that setting I think that we have an opportunity to make an interesting twist on merchanting and the information trade.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Rokolith
It is totally unlikely that, with the big distance between settlements one will be able to travel from settlement to settlement to check on prices in every shop. Come on! We are speaking of a game of THOUSANDS players, who will, at lest eventually, buy and sell stuff.
If you have time to spend hours searching products from town to town and in hundreds of shops one by one ok, but most players do not have the time nor the patience to do so. That is reality.
@Rokolith
It is totally unlikely that, with the big distance between settlements one will be able to travel from settlement to settlement to check on prices in every shop. Come on! We are speaking of a game of THOUSANDS players, who will, at lest eventually, buy and sell stuff.
If you have time to spend hours searching products from town to town and in hundreds of shops one by one ok, but most players do not have the time nor the patience to do so. That is reality.
I wish they would base market data off of settlement progress. Use the settlement level to dictate how much info is available in surrounding hexes. Settlements that are on good terms with each other Would offer more market data between them, while settlements with bad relations would have very little market data being swapped. Obviously alliances and player kingdoms would have even more data available to its members.
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wish they would base market data off of settlement progress. Use the settlement level to dictate how much info is available in surrounding hexes. Settlements that are on good terms with each other Would offer more market data between them, while settlements with bad relations would have very little market data being swapped. Obviously alliances and player kingdoms would have even more data available to its members.
They're just bowing to the reality that there will be a website with all the information on it, updated constantly, regardless of what they do. So just letting people search globally, rather than having a complex system of views, cuts out the middle man and saves work.
It sucks, but sometimes you can't beat 'em and have to do the other thing.
That said, they can obviously still make people go to wherever to pick up their item. Which means the economy will still function, it's just a little more transparent than it would be in a perfect world.
Cheers!
Landon
I wish they would base market data off of settlement progress. Use the settlement level to dictate how much info is available in surrounding hexes. Settlements that are on good terms with each other Would offer more market data between them, while settlements with bad relations would have very little market data being swapped. Obviously alliances and player kingdoms would have even more data available to its members.They're just bowing to the reality that there will be a website with all the information on it, updated constantly, regardless of what they do. So just letting people search globally, rather than having a complex system of views, cuts out the middle man and saves work.
It sucks, but sometimes you can't beat 'em and have to do the other thing.
That said, they can obviously still make people go to wherever to pick up their item. Which means the economy will still function, it's just a little more transparent than it would be in a perfect world.
Cheers!
Landon
I suppose your right. Doesn't mean I like it, but it would cripple those who just use the games info for them to not have the additional data. :/
I hope there will be some way to gain recognition as a crafter. If a player can't tell if they are buying an item from Tei Wu the master swordsmith or ChildLabor69 I don't really see a way.
Well if The sellers name isn't listed. The crafters name could still be listed on the item. I think that would allow you to contact the crafter and work out trade deals. At least the crafter would get some name recognition.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ Lord of Elder Days
Ryan has said that they hope to be able to mark significant items with the makers mark. Perhaps a master craftsman will learn a skill to mark the items they manufacture.
Obviously this will incur some overhead re storage and computer power. I would imagine not that much I though.
If this is the case it then in relation to the concerns you have, who sells the item is not relevant.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really hope they decide to include the crafter's name on player made items.
In Ragnarok Online, If I was a Blacksmith, every item I crafted would have my name as the prefix to that weapon. A Fiery Stiletto made by me would be named "Clynx's Fiery Stiletto". My name on the weapon was even a different colour to denote it was the crafter's name.
I can't stress how important that is in a community. It's crafter recognition that can't be ignored. Anyone who buys that item will know my name. If a player in PFO looted another player after a kill and saw that there was a really good item they could loot, AND it had my name on it, the recognition continues. The names of the people who possess a crafted item might fade into obscurity, but the maker never should.
Other games (and I'll go ahead and take a dump on WoW for this example, 'cause I'll never pass up that opportunity) like WoW, the crafter's name is included as flavor text at the bottom of the item's tooltip. It's a rather obscure recognition. So much so that if you asked the average WoW player who crafted their bags or BoEs, I'm betting 99% couldn't tell you (of those who didn't craft their own).
Ask anyone who's watched Kill Bill the name of the Japanese man that forged the legendary samurai swords, and I bet they could tell you. If GW is serious about giving crafter's their due in PFO, then that example should be the ideology behind their design process in regards to crafter recognition.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'll do that one better. I would love to see the maker be able to name the weapon they craft. Yes, you might get some very poor or even indecent names, but if it's a really good item and has it's own name, it would be fun to see that particular item become sought after server-wide.
I would keep the global trade just for comodities and raw materials (maybe refined stuff too) and the rest I would set local player-ruled shops. But I still want to have a way to see all the prices, at least from the closest cities.
In Eve you don't see all the regions when you browse the market, you only see markets in your immediate region. It's a good sized area, certainly enough to play market games.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If there is going to be an AH, then it should have a tax for buying and selling on it, such as 50% tax to both buyer and seller. This way will help promote visiting player shops, that don't suffer from tax.
I fully agree with that the player must place his orders in person, buy and sell in person and collect in person. That will solve the big alignment issue of of evil going into good settlement and good going into evil settlement. You definitely will be going on a survival course entering a very hazardous environment to do trade.
Yes, there will be the very brave (or most likely foolhardy) to go into a settlement to buy or sell something, and perhaps succeed. Then comes the question of morality into the picture, why is a good aligned character buy from his enemy the evil, whom he is determined to get rid of. I think there should be a reputation hit for good (maybe alignment shift to evil) to go with the buying or selling with evil.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Money has no conscience. The anonymous model Ryan set out should apply for bulk resources. If the resources are sold in lots that specify which communities the buyer would have to pick them up in it will help give neutral teamsters business when Evil characters need goods sold in Good communities and vice-versa.
It sounds like Ryan also intends to not distinguish between crafting resources and finished products, but if the pricing is readily available for finished products on the common market local sellers should be able to factor the estimated costs of transport and offer locally a slightly higher price and still be giving a reduced net cost to local buyers. If you can buy a sword from a remote community but have to ge there to get it then if I want to sell the same kind of sword here I can estimate what that customer would have to spend in time and effort to go get his purchase and realize an increased margin.
However I would expect every community to levy a tax for the community's coffers for any transaction there, just to offset community upkeep. If the citizens of that conmmunity wanted to increase trade they might offset what sales tax they would levy with voluntary contributions, thus lowering taxes/prices artificially to attract customers if the tax the customer would have to bear is also listed with the selling price.
Should responsibility for fees and levies be the responsibility of the seller, the buyer, or should the community not levy taxes on commerce?
Well, tax on sales in an AH system is usually incurred on the seller, not the buyer. In most games, it's a way to destroy or remove money from the economy - something every game needs to do. You can't have a game generate money without removing it somewhere else; you'll end up with massive inflation otherwise as money keeps entering a system without leaving it.
This could be an argument for why players would have an incentive to sell their goods in their own shop or through a communication channel. If they wanted to sell on their own and circumvent the market/AH, they wouldn't have to pay the tax.
I take issue with settlements setting their own tax rate and pocketing those taxes for themselves. Ultimately, 1 player is pocketing ALL of the tax on good faith that it will be put towards the betterment of the settlement... which can get a little shady on its own. The second part of this is: Will settlements even require a monetary upkeep at all? I'd rather see them require resources and skills. Need to fix or build better walls? - Better quarry some stone and wood and build them. The third part is: a 'reasonable' tax rate is subjective. The leader(s) of a settlement might be really ambitious and be willing to tax 10% of market sales in order to build more. But maybe other players might not agree. What if the crafters can only afford 5%? Do they just leave the settlement? What if outside players don't want to pay 10% when 'settlement B' two hexes over only taxes 5% - you'd essentially drive away your own business.
I think a tax the settlement places on its residents is something that should be done at the player level and independent of any built-in game mechanic like the AH. The leader(s) simply ask each player to pay their rent at the end of the day/week/month. Players can then donate money/goods/services in a manner relative to their playstyle - Not everyone will spend significant amounts of time on the market anyway, in which the tax system fails the settlement in that regard.
--
In a donation system, I'd very much like it to be publicly broadcasted when a donation is made, what that donation was, and by whom. This should all be recorded and accessible by everyone in the settlement. It lets everyone know exactly who is donating what, and at what pace. In a lot of cases, you get players competing with each other to be the person who has donated the most. It also allows the leader to identify who hasn't been donating and see if they can motivate them to contribute, or possibly even remove them if they aren't meeting the required standards of the settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well, from one of the blogs (Put it in Writing, July 3rd 2012):
A character proposing a settlement must define several aspects of the settlement in its charter:
The settlement's name
The location of the settlement's hex
The settlement's alignment—characters must be within one alignment step* to join or remain a member of the settlement
The settlement's tax rate
Allocation of settlement votes:
Feudal: One character has all the votes
Oligarchy: A limited group of characters have votes as apportioned by the charter
Democracy: Every member of the settlement has an equal vote
The tax rate of a settlement determines a percentage of each member's income that is automatically deducted and placed into the settlement's accounts. It is a critical part of the settlement economy. Members' income includes coin received by settlement members from contracts, quests and loot; settlement income includes coin paid as fees for the use of settlement buildings.
Tax Rates
The tax rate can be set anywhere from 0% to 100%. Settlements with 100% tax rates are assumed to have some internal mechanism for distributing property and coin to members. Settlements with 0% tax rates are assumed to have some internal mechanism for assessing membership for coin needed to pay operating costs and overhead of the settlement. Changing the tax rate requires a vote to change the settlement charter.
So power doesn't always need to be in one person's hands, and I'd suspect a lot of groups might default to oligarchy to ensure a fair number of leaders having a say.
Does look like taxes will be important.Of course, this info is from a while ago and could change.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I vote for shops over any auction house. It is much more in tune with the environment of the game and if you don't want to but a sword from that shopkeeper, go somewhere else.
If AHs are included (hope they are not unless it is a scheduled auction of specific wares and conducted like an auction at Christie's Auction House) market PvP is as viable a tactic in any game as player PvP.
I say go for shop, use old style auctions if they must be used, and if they are market PvP is a legit operation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Clynx
Announce who donated and the amount for everybody in settlement by broadcasting it?
1- Imersion breaking
2- I don't wanna people knowing how much money I donate, because that can give them clues of how much money I have. Last thing I want is to have bandits stalking me everytime I leave town just because my donations were broadcasted, and they know that if I did a big donation I must have a lot of gold.
3- It will give enemies information about settlements' economic power. No leader want it.
No way it will be accepted by most players.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
- Auction houses will suit PvP players who just want a quick way to sell stolen goods and trade up to better weapons and armor before dashing out to kill someone else.
-Auction houses will suit players like certain friends of mine who are real world market speculators and invariable can play/manipulate in game markets at will and accumulate immense wealth far faster than anyone can get it by adventuring/crafting/looting. Because they never leave safe areas and never craft they need no gear whatsoever and put every cent they have into commodities that they stockpile and resell at huge profits.
- Player shops will suit role-players and crafters and will add more flavor to the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
- Auction houses will suit PvP players who just want a quick way to sell stolen goods and trade up to better weapons and armor before dashing out to kill someone else.
Broad incorrect generalisation, PvE players like to do their shopping as quick and convenient as possible too. I am not saying, that there is something wrong with players wanting to own and operate their own store, but even with an auction house there are pleny of options for them.
Hopefully PFO will have Eve style markets instead of Wow style AHs. Even small players can make money on a market, where a AH requires either a lot of money or a steady flow of grub gear to put up.
We need to break the AH cycle, it's corrupted MMOs for far too long