Sign in to follow this  
Kegan

Trader proposal

Recommended Posts

Trader proposal: Works the same way with draining and everything but with some changes 

 

1: Traders need a contract like a merchant so you can regulate premium payouts.


  • the contract holder needs to be premium to earn any money from the pool when the envoy pays
  • f2p players still have the sell, rare coins along with the trader draining from public set traders so they can still earn see #3 below
  • Edit: Only one trader contract per player (they can carry more contracts but only have one active/set trader earning coins globally across all the servers) 

2: Cap the funds so that the player holding the contract can not get more then the cost of their premium back every month. (Rolfs choice on the amount and how that all works but needs to be less than 10s)

 

3: Anyone can drain the funds out of a trader but the contract holder needs to be premium for the envoy of the king to leave any money on the trader when they show up.  (this way players can lock them away and get all the money for themselves or make it public to bring in new players to their markets or deeds) 


 

4: Starter deeds will have premium holders and Rolf can even make them a higher payout if he likes but with the rare coins and the sell feature i don't see a need...up to him.


 

5: Traders can be packed up and moved like a merchant. 

  • they do not earn anything while packed up and the player made items get deleted when they are packed up to be moved.
  • contracts can be traded and sold like merchant contracts
  • abandoned traders can be packed up by players and returned to the contract holder
  • Edit: Any coins left on the trader when it is packed up automatically goes into the bank of the contract holder
6: Any tax still goes to the deed you have the trader set or the deed the contract holder is a member of that sets the trader.    

 

7: Since the contract holder has to be premium to get any money from the envoy then you no longer need the 64 tile restriction making the land grab issues no longer a problem. (you can have as many on a deed you like since the contract holder has to be premium to earn and the trader earns less then the premium they cost)

Edited by Kegan
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh... this would lead to people packing up their traders and micro-managing with the server payouts to get multiple times their premium back.


 


You missed two parts:


 


A1. A trader doesn't earn any money from the king's envoy the month he is placed or repositioned.


 


A2. A premium player may place a maximum of one trader per account per server.


 


Even then it's a lacklustre game feature with the new system, except for those people who will try to maximize gains by micro-management and playing this particular system.


  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Make them so they cannnot cross servers?? Once placed the first time they are a permananet member of that server. Could maybe make them transferrable?


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just skip traders they are not a fun system i wish i could get rid of my traders as it is.


  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A1. A trader doesn't earn any money from the king's envoy the month he is placed or repositioned.

 

A2. A premium player may place a maximum of one trader per account per server.

Good points but the cap the trader/ player has for the month should cover A1 since it does not matter what server it is on it only earns its monthly cap then is blocked from getting any funds so there is no way it can earn more then the premium it costs to keep the alt earning. 

 

As far as A2 goes yes it was always my intention to only have one trader per character but forgot to put it down and will add that to the OP now. 

 

Edit: This is as close to the system that we have now that i could come up with that seemed fair and fixes most of the issues with them. No one is going to have a premium alt just for a trader since it will not cover the costs it takes to pay the premium. 

Edited by Kegan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

/shamelesslazycopypaste


 


How bout... 


 


Split the coin pools, separate ones for foragers and traders.


 


Give traders, depending on how many truly spring up (who knows, could wind up being just a dozen, could be a thousand), ***random figure*** 25% of the total redistributed gold pool, effectively keeping them at an artificially capped 2s minimum (for at least 18 months so the 35 silver are recovered, could then be abandoned).


 


Come reset time, if the rest of Xanadu hasn't foraged up the other full 75%, trader owners get lucky on that leftover.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had always thought that the traders and all the other features were already separate and yes if they are not they should be. (the parentage would be up to Rolf...ofc) 


 


Rolf did say that the sell function would not effect the trader pool that it was separate but i guess they are saying the rare coins do have the same pool so that seems more like a bug more than anything. 


Edited by Kegan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had always thought that the traders and all the other features were already separate and yes if they are not they should be. (the parentage would be up to Rolf...ofc) 

 

Rolf did say that the sell function would not effect the trader pool that it was separate but i guess they are saying the rare coins do have the same pool so that seems more like a bug more than anything. 

 

Don't all three take from the same pool in the end? It's probably just that rare coins can take from the shares of both sell and the traders so that the rare coins don't suddenly dry up, which doesn't sound like much of a bug. At least, I think it makes perfect sense since you wouldn't want to add new money into the game just to keep the rare coins going, so you'd have to take it from another pool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't all three take from the same pool in the end? It's probably just that rare coins can take from the shares of both sell and the traders so that the rare coins don't suddenly dry up, which doesn't sound like much of a bug. At least, I think it makes perfect sense since you wouldn't want to add new money into the game just to keep the rare coins going, so you'd have to take it from another pool.

Well who is to say one has more merit over the other one?At least with traders you pay for the "share" in the pool so seems that one would take higher priority if what you say is true.

 

This is why they need separate shares so that once the "sell share" is gone then the players using that part of the redistribution no longer have access to the pool through selling items.. and that one is working. Same with rare coins once players have dried up the "gather/rare coin share" then no more rare coins are left to find. Traders are the same but they divide their share over the 29 days. (I am not real sure how that part works but they should never be dry they should pay when the pool is updated or whatever.)

 

Now that it was explained so you can understand my thoughts better then yes the rare coins dipping into the "traders share" does seems like a bug to me. If not then it needs to be separated so each player can pick what game option they want to be a part of in the redistribution and not get their share drained by the others. (keep in mind everyone can be a part of them all) 

 

We are getting a little off track here but in the end it all is connected so i guess that is okay. 

Edited by Kegan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not have traders only buy things that they can sell?  Buy things from players, to fill orders from other players.


The reason why trader "draining" happens is because players are selling things to the trader that no player would buy for that price. The traders dont really know what the value of things are. If they did, then people could sell things to traders or other players and it wouldnt matter becasue they would get the same amount of silver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I view this as a band-aid type solution. The fundamental issue is that large portions of the community don't like trader's wealth redistribution mechanic.


 


This is almost like letting people buy lifetime premium memberships for a value that fluctuates. Further, since the number of these purchases would likely far exceed the value of funds to be redistributed the fluctuation would likely be some kind of exponential growth. This will lead to public disgust that at its seed is a feeling of unfairness. Thus, same old trader story, nothing new. 


 


 


I prefer that trader stop distributing redistributing wealth and that they are changed in a way that makes them a better item trader. The latter could be achieved with 1) More informative and easier to use interface (searchable spreadsheet--Eve and Xsyon both have good ones), 2) better supply demand mechanics that take into account type, quality and enchants, 3) traders always accept trades in their favor. In this situation there buy prices could be dropped and spacing restrictions removed.


 


 




Eh... this would lead to people packing up their traders and micro-managing with the server payouts to get multiple times their premium back.




If the cap is player specific it wouldn't matter how you micromanaged them. Once a premium player has received 10s in a month he or she gets no more, regardless of what server or what trader is currently active.


 


 


This would be a fundamental change in how traders work. If this goes into effect it is a MUST that mayors(premium or not) have the option to dismiss traders and receive a 20s refund. Following historical precedent 20s is the standard given to all other trader dismissal/refund situations.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thought behind this proposal is to keep the core of the system in place while making adjustments so it is less "exploitable". (although he has already nerfed them pretty good already) 


 


Then later on if he finds the time he could put on whatever other changes he likes like a global auction house concept but i think they would be fine doing both as long as there were proper caps in place. .


 


Edit: Anyway i have done all i can for the cause so i will leave it with you guys to think on and get back to building my new deed. 


Edited by Kegan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this