Thoughts On The Wurm Economy

[Revelation 288]

3 hours ago, Gavin said:

Threads like this confuse me.

 

I don't really understand the notion that everyone needs to be able to make silver in the game, why do people need it? I understand deed upkeep is a factor, but it's so ridiculously cheap now a reasonable sized deed can be upkept simply by selling the sleep powder you naturally accumulate. If you want items, there are many merchants suchas myself (shameless plug) who will happily trade various items (ie bricks, mortar, sleep powder, gems, veggies) for high quality enchanted tools/armour with zero silver involved.

 

Furthermore as some ppl say due to lack of demand the prices for items have dropped through the floor, so there is no shortage of merchants willing to sell things that used to cost 4s now sell for 2s.

 

Something I would also suggest to players who don't have priests but have the ability to improve items decently, is to reach out to merchants who DO have priests and offer your services - I sell a reasonable amount of items from my merchant and the vast majority of it I all improve myself but I work lots of hours IRL so due to lack of time to improve the items myself often I will go around to various merchants at Glasshollow or Freedom Market and clean out the merchants selling blank tools/armour/weapons and enchant them and sell them for a small profit margin, I've probably dumped 1.5G at Glasshollow and ~1G at Freedom Market over the past 2 months and none of those people needed priests to make some money.

 

 

 

 

 

I agree wholeheartedly with all of this.

There isn't really a need to pump out items for silver anyway, why on earth would you spend hours doing something that will give you a net return of a few euros?

 

Unless you're doing something you like anyway, but isn't that enough reward in itself?

[Neroden 60]

A big part of the problem is that items generally never get removed from the market, as they can always be improved/enchanted again and again...  What we're lacking is a system that removes items from circulation after a period of time/use - to be clear I'm not suggesting that your Knarr should suddenly RNG explodes while you're sailing, but once you improve it to 50QL and click a "finish" button, it can only ever go down in QL and be repaired via the repair skill until its no longer useful. Once its no longer useful we should have some kind of salvage skill that will allow us to salvage/deconstruct already built items to recover a portion of the build materials.

 

Something like this:

1. Add "Unfinished" versions of all items that represent the item while it is being crafted, and Item is only finished when its maker clicks a "finished" button.  An item is unusable until it is "finished" when it is turned into the regular version of that item
2. An item, say an "Unfinished Pickaxe" is crafted and improved to 70QL
3. The "Unfinished Pickaxe" is then enchanted with WOA/COC 80
4. The maker then needs to click a "Finish" menu option that turns the "Unfinished Pickaxe" into just a regular usable "70QL 80WOA/COC Pickaxe" once this is done, it only ever be repaired via repair skill, and never improved/enchanted again
5. Add a new deconstruction/salvage skill that allows us to breakdown items into a portion of their materials with a random roll chance to also receive some kind of RARE enchant gem(this could be anything a special hammer handle, or faster boat keel or whatever) that can be used when creating a new "Unfinished" item with superior stats
6. Now lets say our Pickaxe from step 4 gets worn down to 48QL, and we're not happy with it anymore, we deconstruct it, and get a little iron/wood back and if we're really lucky, we get a +5 Speed Pickaxe head(only attainable if an item is over X days old or has X uses or somesuch to prevent farming of new low ql items). Return to step 2 and build a new weapon all over again - a rare/unique/stat boosted one if you were lucky enough to salvage a rare item.

This would result in turn over of items on a few different levels, you'd eventually HAVE to cycle through items, and boats would eventually have a market again, as they would eventually decay to the point of only being useful as salvage.There would also be those who would go out and collect items for the sole reason of deconstruction maybe not so much for the prospect of recovering a little iron, but for the chance at gaining a rare item for their next tool/boat/weapon/armor.

 

 

[Etherdrifter 2,517]

Well a rather interesting thought is that even if it is not for silvers players like to feel their skills are "useful".  If no-one wants your tools or weapons (or magic) then why bother doing it?

 

The notion of economy doesn't just define silver, it defines players as part of the community.

 

My ideas were aimed at making location a deciding factor for convenience since, on wurm, convenience sells.  Why dig 1000 dirts when you can buy them?  Introducing resources to fixed locals that make the game easier (coal vs charcoal for example...) means that a player can be self sufficient if they want to be, but they'll have to work all the harder for it (making coal clamps instead of mining a vein).

 

The idea is not to have something like clay that you cannot get a workable equivelent to no matter how hard you try, but something that is very easy to gather at a location but hard to produce elsewhere.  A nice example being tar vs olive oil, olive oil is marginally more useful (compasses) but tar is a LOT easier to produce if you have a source nearby, though because tar is so common there is no real demand for it.

 

I feel that server unique resources as well as local unique resources would also stimulate the economy, indeed we already see server unique resources being a major trading point (custom guard towers/flags) since only a restricted group of players can produce them but you can join that group by moving servers (and entering the drama ring in this particular case).

 

The real goal of a good economy on wurm is to have players interact to make one another's lives easier, to encourage the flow of favours and money as a labour saver on both sides.

[Ayes 3,715]

How is it a problem when items sell for less? Oh yea, those who sell them want to make more, so they call this a problem with the "economy".

 

How is it a problem when players work up various skills in order to become more self-sufficient? Oh yea, then those players who want to sell them things won't be able to since they can now make them themselves.

 

How is it a problem when all players can now mail items for 1 copper to any server and this saves them 38 copper for mailing to someone and back? Oh yea, now they can mail these items to anyone for whatever purpose and are not restricted to their Local area by excessive mailing costs, which these Local residents would otherwise make money from.

 

How is it a problem when those who have played for years have very high skills because of the effort they have put forth over all these years to build them to those levels? Oh yea, because then it reduces the money others can make from selling them things because well, they just don't *need them anymore.

 

This is the common theme running through this thread about the Wurm "economy". It's all about these certain players wanting to make money from selling things and services to other players, so they advocate for the game to be changed to enable them to make more. Then they even have the nerve to complain when other players build their own skills to levels where they don't need their services anymore. Even beyond this, they want some way for these players skills to be reduced to accommodate this.

 

To change the game mechanics to enable players to make more money from playing the game at the expense of others who have no interest in making money from playing the game is a foolish idea. Beyond being simply selfish, it will drive others out who do not play the game to make money from it and this is actually the market that the money makers sell their items to.

 

One nice thing about this game is that over the years of playing one can build their skills to levels where they are able to become more independent of others services if desired. This is their mindset, desire and goal. That the game enables players to achieve this is a good thing, although it will not serve the money makers well, I realize. Play the game to make all the money you can from it if you will, as that is an option as well; but, lighten up on this idea that everyone in the game should pay the price for it, even if they are able to reduce their own expenses through the independence of their own efforts.

 

=Ayes=

[Eltaran 79]

Personally I enjoy making things other people then use and to possibly earn a reputation as a better than average crafter (maybe you played SWG pre-NGE, then you'll know what I mean. It took a lot of effort to get the right resources to make top stuff, but people flocked to your shop to buy things they couldn't get someplace else). I also like to buy stuff people make or harvest selling it to people someplace else that need it. Not for the sake of just amassing fortunes but because I like the interaction. Looks like people can't imagine that motivation these days though...

[rixk 830]

I don't even understand, what's with the witchhunt for the people, who are trading. Come on.. trading is vital part of any MMO, many people focus on it. And I think that is obvious as with any other things, things should be balanced, for both, the seller and for the buyer. Yes, seller is offering the service, buyer is purchasing.. noone is forced to make a business transaction. Everyone has also an opportunity to make stuff on their own.

 

Trading is pretty much only way players have a reason to interact on PvE servers with each other.. It should be encouraged(not forced). Also just random bit of information trading subsection is one of the most active part of the forums.

[Jaz 2,665]

I don't really see how business is so bad in Wurm.

I'm a crafter myself - won't go lower than a price I set, I decide if the time spent to make / imp the items worth it to me. Anyway, will never ever been able to earn any money comparable to a a RL job, and it is not a goal anyway.

I like to be able to fulfill some demand, I like to be able to pay the upkeeps and the fancy items I might want from the WTS threads but making a living of Wurm? Sounds mad to me.

On the other hand the new mail fees and the plotting system definitely kicked my workload and the demand on my services up.

[dadd 123]

8 hours ago, Eobersig said:

 

You seem to be new around here, but this is in-game since years.

Yeah Gavin you are as new as i am LOL> come on mate step up.

 

This is close to the best thread i have read on Wurm so many great ideas, and keeping on topic.

Break the selling of in game $ to real $ , yes its nice to do but lets keep the money in game as long as we can.

Banning of players will bring back a few ,, i have heard some have already been allowed back?

It would be interesting to know how many players ( and alts) play Wurm to make money?

As for myself i play Wurm for my pleasure and entertainment, helping others and using Wurm as my relaxation.

Perhaps the Devs and Gms could be a little more understanding of how grey most rules seem to be with mechanics changing and opening up more grey areas, but over all i have to say Wurm is looking better.

Ayes your post above is perfect saying openly what a lot think but knowing the numbers will troll it, well done.

 

Cheers Dadd

 

 

Edited January 29, 2016 by dadd

[Audrel 2,223]

My thoughts are pretty much passive-aggressive in that I don't really care if someone is able to pay to play for free by doing in-game stuff or not so my thoughts on the economy that drives freemium play is a big who cares. I buy premium from the store to support the game (except on two occasions in my entire time here) , even if I have silvers enough to do it from the token, which you can get by foraging and never entering the market.

[geode 292]

6 hours ago, Ayes said:

How is it a problem when items sell for less? Oh yea, those who sell them want to make more, so they call this a problem with the "economy".

 

How is it a problem when players work up various skills in order to become more self-sufficient? Oh yea, then those players who want to sell them things won't be able to since they can now make them themselves.

 

How is it a problem when all players can now mail items for 1 copper to any server and this saves them 38 copper for mailing to someone and back? Oh yea, now they can mail these items to anyone for whatever purpose and are not restricted to their Local area by excessive mailing costs, which these Local residents would otherwise make money from.

 

How is it a problem when those who have played for years have very high skills because of the effort they have put forth over all these years to build them to those levels? Oh yea, because then it reduces the money others can make from selling them things because well, they just don't *need them anymore.

 

This is the common theme running through this thread about the Wurm "economy". It's all about these certain players wanting to make money from selling things and services to other players, so they advocate for the game to be changed to enable them to make more. Then they even have the nerve to complain when other players build their own skills to levels where they don't need their services anymore. Even beyond this, they want some way for these players skills to be reduced to accommodate this.

 

To change the game mechanics to enable players to make more money from playing the game at the expense of others who have no interest in making money from playing the game is a foolish idea. Beyond being simply selfish, it will drive others out who do not play the game to make money from it and this is actually the market that the money makers sell their items to.

 

One nice thing about this game is that over the years of playing one can build their skills to levels where they are able to become more independent of others services if desired. This is their mindset, desire and goal. That the game enables players to achieve this is a good thing, although it will not serve the money makers well, I realize. Play the game to make all the money you can from it if you will, as that is an option as well; but, lighten up on this idea that everyone in the game should pay the price for it, even if they are able to reduce their own expenses through the independence of their own efforts.

 

=Ayes=

 

Bingo.

Edited January 29, 2016 by geode

[hankrearden 144]

9 hours ago, Ayes said:

How is it a problem when items sell for less? Oh yea, those who sell them want to make more, so they call this a problem with the "economy".

The reason this can be problematic is that a higher portion of a merchants 'income' goes toward money leakages (deeds or premium).  This means that merchant has less money to spend on another merchants wares which reduces the 2nd merchants income and so on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_flow_of_income

 

9 hours ago, Ayes said:

 

How is it a problem when players work up various skills in order to become more self-sufficient? Oh yea, then those players who want to sell them things won't be able to since they can now make them themselves.

Not really a problem imo.  Not really sure if anyone said this is a problem - possible strawman?

 

9 hours ago, Ayes said:

 

How is it a problem when all players can now mail items for 1 copper to any server and this saves them 38 copper for mailing to someone and back? Oh yea, now they can mail these items to anyone for whatever purpose and are not restricted to their Local area by excessive mailing costs, which these Local residents would otherwise make money from.

The problem with cheap mail costs is that it funnels all of the business/interaction into the hands of a few players.  While it is true that this is the most efficient market outcome, a more inclusive economy would bring a pleasurable gaming experience to a broader group of people as opposed to keeping it in the hands of the few.  The heart of the issue is deciding if introducing slight inefficiencies into the market is an acceptable cost for achieving a more meaningful Wurm experience for a broader range of players who's play style is merchant based.

 

 

9 hours ago, Ayes said:

 

How is it a problem when those who have played for years have very high skills because of the effort they have put forth over all these years to build them to those levels? Oh yea, because then it reduces the money others can make from selling them things because well, they just don't *need them anymore.

I believe the OP was discussing the LACK of market for mid range wares, not the price level.

 

 

9 hours ago, Ayes said:

 

This is the common theme running through this thread about the Wurm "economy". It's all about these certain players wanting to make money from selling things and services to other players, so they advocate for the game to be changed to enable them to make more. Then they even have the nerve to complain when other players build their own skills to levels where they don't need their services anymore. Even beyond this, they want some way for these players skills to be reduced to accommodate this.

I can not speak for everyone who posted, but I have no plans of trying to make money from mid-range goods.  About the only things I ever sold was high ql steel lumps or brass lamps, but I don't really bother with that much anymore.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

 

9 hours ago, Ayes said:

 

To change the game mechanics to enable players to make more money from playing the game at the expense of others who have no interest in making money from playing the game is a foolish idea. Beyond being simply selfish, it will drive others out who do not play the game to make money from it and this is actually the market that the money makers sell their items to.

 

Making a change in game mechanics to bring about a mid range goods market will not help an individual player 'make more money'.  It would allow want to be merchants, who make zero money, to be able to sell some things.  The players who are making the money right now don't want a change and will make up part of the opposition to calls for change.

 

With a declining player base, I believe we should be looking at how to make a more meaningful gaming experience to those wanting to play a merchant - as opposed to how we can make things more convenient to those already playing.  Like it or not, many players want to 'set up shop' in a virtual world - this is what makes the game enjoyable for them.  They are not looking to sell their coins on the forum, it is just how they choose to participate in this game.  I think this is more true in wurm than in other mmo's.  IMO it is a bad idea to reject this subset of the player base because those not interested in being a merchant want to save some copper on the tools they buy.

[Darmalus 631]

30 minutes ago, hankrearden said:

The reason this can be problematic is that a higher portion of a merchants 'income' goes toward money leakages (deeds or premium).  This means that merchant has less money to spend on another merchants wares which reduces the 2nd merchants income and so on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_flow_of_income

This is the main reason I want to attack the silver-leaks (Premium and deeds) first, to see if just having more "economic lubricant" solves, or at least alleviates, some of these issues.

Edited January 30, 2016 by Darmalus

[LorraineJ 1,099]

11 hours ago, Neroden said:

 

This would result in turn over of items on a few different levels, you'd eventually HAVE to cycle through items, and boats would eventually have a market again, as they would eventually decay to the point of only being useful as salvage.There would also be those who would go out and collect items for the sole reason of deconstruction maybe not so much for the prospect of recovering a little iron, but for the chance at gaining a rare item for their next tool/boat/weapon/armor.

 

 

I don't sign on to this game to play market. Lots of other people don't either. I DO buy lots of items but once you try to force me to have to buy them, I'll find better things to do with my time and money.

[LorraineJ 1,099]

56 minutes ago, hankrearden said:

With a declining player base, I believe we should be looking at how to make a more meaningful gaming experience to those wanting to play a merchant - as opposed to how we can make things more convenient to those already playing.  Like it or not, many players want to 'set up shop' in a virtual world - this is what makes the game enjoyable for them.  They are not looking to sell their coins on the forum, it is just how they choose to participate in this game.  I think this is more true in wurm than in other mmo's.  IMO it is a bad idea to reject this subset of the player base because those not interested in being a merchant want to save some copper on the tools they buy.

 

 

 

What about what makes the game enjoyable for me? I don't try to adjust your game play in order to make my game play more enjoyable. Everyone should be able to do what they want to do, without artificial hobbles and inconveniences so that the people who want things from me can be allowed to take them. Take my time, take my money, take my enjoyment - because people want to play market. PAY ME to waste my time traveling around and re-buying items over and over. All of you who want to play Mister Super Merchant - pay me to travel to your sales spot, and buy an inferior tool so you can feel excited that you got to be a merchant. If that's what floats your boat, pay me to interact with you that way. Don't feel entitled to TAKE from me my spare time and money so you can have more fun. Rolf, make some NPCs that travel around buying stuff. Don't expect your paying customers to pay extra to give jollies to players who want to play Economy.

 

Hmm, let's see. What makes the game enjoyable for ME is to have nice flowers planted around. I think I need some good enjoyment. I think that everyone should be obligated to come visit decorated deeds, and elaborately compliment the mayors in person, and even leave a tip in coppers or silvers. If you don't visit and compliment three mayors each month, your skills in five categories will decay by 12%, decreasing each day exponentially until you manage to make up for missing your compliments of the month. Sound ridiculous? It is. But it's no more ridiculous than proposing that the tools/weapons I've paid for should decay away so I have to buy more, or to force me to ride around to buy my items rather than have them mailed to me.

 

[Eltaran 79]

Well, there basically seem to be two fractions: those who want interdependencies and interaction and those who want to play a single player game with a chat. I for one will have to see how long building a deed for the sake of building a deed will keep me interested. If that floats your boat: more power to you!

[griper 535]

Or one large group who wants to play the game without having to travel long distances and pay lots of silver to maintain a decent equipment set. And another smaller group who wants to force the first group to do that.

 

[Dairuka 888]

This is starting to read like Gumbo's thread on Weapon Enchantment decay. People assume greed, not design theory.

[LorraineJ 1,099]

4 hours ago, Dairuka said:

4 hours ago, Dairuka said:

This is starting to read like Gumbo's thread on Weapon Enchantment decay. People assume greed, not design theory.

 

 

I'm not assuming greed, I'm stunned at the assumption of entitlement. People want to play a particular way, relying on actions of other people, and if that level of interaction isn't naturally adequate to what they want, they feel the game should FORCE more of the interaction, with no concern about how the other people may want to expend their time or resources. First, they want the game super grindy because that makes them feel good. So there's no influx of new players to buy their wares. Well then, force the players who've stuck around to have to buy stuff over and over and over, and on top of that, buy it from whom they think the items should be bought from. That is NOT a sandbox. That's work. There has to be some compromise. I'll never forget the rabid reaction to the proposal of a GPS system for directions. NO! We can't have that! It has to be hard to find where we are! How about just not using the system if you want to navigate a different way? Maybe if we got the system, 10% more people would have stuck around to play the game longer, and then there would have been that many more people to sell mid-level wares to -?

[geode 292]

6 hours ago, Eltaran said:

Well, there basically seem to be two fractions: those who want interdependencies and interaction and those who want to play a single player game with a chat. I for one will have to see how long building a deed for the sake of building a deed will keep me interested. If that floats your boat: more power to you!

 

There will never be "interdependency gameplay" in Wurm as it's Coded up until now, even if every player bought and sold.

 

In Wurm there is no limit to how many skills a Players can "have" when viewed as a total skill base across all characters a Player owns and/or controls... so many players try to be the Walmart "we sell everything" of Wurm and fail to realize one huge problem with Wurm's economy... if Players are going to be allowed to do it all, make everything, learn every skill so they can not only make the weapons and items, but also enchant them, and acquire the resources to do all that, then for the economy to be healthy some sort of artificial cap on how many characters can be merchants must be enacted, otherwise we have what we do now...Far too many merchants and not enough customers. Years ago ingame it was quite difficult to be the one guy/gal that controlled a huge merchant empire (not impossible but difficult), but now it's much easier. That's just plain unnatural and completely skews the economy on a bent no other economy in real life could ever replicate.

 

If Players are serious, and I mean dead serious, on making Wurm's economy work much better for everyone overall, then there's a few choices, such as these to add to the solution discussion:

 

1.) Implement a hard cap on each PLAYER of total skills across each account and it's characters and enforce those caps to keep a proper ratio of merchants vs. customers.... or.... a system of diminishing returns far worse than what Wurm has now for gaining skill past a certain cap of total skill "points" and make it retroactive.

 

-or-

 

2.) Implement changes to enchanting to make it much more difficult and risky, along with a limit of one enchantment per item for the life of the item, in effect removing by enchantment decay a large portion of the items currently in the economy.

 

Because characters are immortal and have almost no need to sleep in Wurm there is no natural limit to what a Player can skill up a character to do, and that makes every character a potential crafting god, and unless changes like these happen there will always be too many merchants and never enough customers. It's the game design itself that causes the situation many are complaining about. Artificial limits must be placed either upon skill totals or item life or both.

 

So... it's up to all of you... what kind of artificial restrictions would you would accept from Rolf and Devs to help make the economy better?

 

(this is why I complained about the fountain backpacks... because those "magic bags" remove a natural limit in the game of how many items a player can hold, and add to these items craft macroing and now the crafter gods become crafter gods with near endless bags of holding and almost 24/7 work schedule... NO Economy in any online game can withstand hundreds of players doing that (over 600 hundred backpacks), I defy anyone to prove otherwise. If Player really want a sensible and stable economy some serious and hard choices need to be made.)

 

 

Edited January 30, 2016 by geode

[LorraineJ 1,099]

6 minutes ago, geode said:

 

So... it's up to all of you... what kind of artificial restrictions would you would accept from Rolf and Devs to help make the economy better?

 

 

Absolutely none. I'm not signing in to this game to play economy. This is my free time that I want to enjoy. I don't need to be manipulated and invoiced in order to give a subset of game players their enjoyment. And, for most of these people, you've made your bed, now lie in it. You wanted to have uber decay and grind and fails and slow travel and no GPS and every other slow-going boring thing possible - so now you have no new players to sell to. You want to have your cake, eat it too, have more made up to your specs and have it delivered on a silver platter.

 

Now and then I think of things that would make my gameplay more fun - but I don't imagine I should turn and FORCE other players to supply me with this fun. Or take away elements of their enjoyed actions (like selling toons) because MY fun would be better if they couldn't. THAT is the crux of the matter. Where does the right to subtract the enjoyment of the game from some people and literally TAKE from them, to give to other people who can't be entertained enough without taking from others, come from?

[Eltaran 79]

NVM, there's your way and the wrong way - I'll pull out before things really go downhill.

 

Edited January 30, 2016 by Eltaran
Derailment prevention

[Etherdrifter 2,517]

@LorraineJ

The logic so far:

 

You feel entitled to play the game the way you want AND You wish to hold back changes (or push forward changes) that others may want because it goes against your gamestyle

 

So far so good, the trouble is that:

 

Others feel entitled to play the game their way AND They wish to push forward changes (or hold back changes) that others may want because it goes against their gamestyle IMPLIES They are forcing their style of play on you

 

But then this means that

 

You feel entitled to play the game the way you want AND You wish to hold back changes (or push forward changes) that others may want because it goes against your gamestyle IMPLIES You are forcing your style of play on them

 

So lets skip that part of the debate and really ask what it is about the notion of greater advantages to interdependance that really worries you?  Surely we wish the whole to be greater than the sum of its parts and to encourage players to grouop together (something that extends a players lifetime on wurm)?  WU offers the ultimate "wurm singleplayer" experience after all.

[Amadee 1,543]

There is a big, big difference between A.) making changes that enhance the enjoyment of game play for individuals whether they choose to form dependencies with others or not, and B.) making changes that force dependencies via game mechanics onto everyone to either enhance the RL income of some or to force others to play in any particular way.

 

Many of the suggestions in this thread have to do directly with forcing interdependence with no choices in the matter.  I see no reason whatsoever to start making those kinds of changes.  Self sufficiently is a valid goal for some in this game, that many have been working towards for many years, and should remain that way.

 

Sure, I'd like to see the economy improve and although I have no merchants myself and don't sell stuff, I do sympathize with those who do.  But making changes that would effectively impose the play style of a few onto everyone else is not the solution imo.

[LorraineJ 1,099]

26 minutes ago, Etherdrifter said:

@LorraineJ

 

So lets skip that part of the debate and really ask what it is about the notion of greater advantages to interdependance that really worries you?  Surely we wish the whole to be greater than the sum of its parts and to encourage players to grouop together (something that extends a players lifetime on wurm)?  WU offers the ultimate "wurm singleplayer" experience after all.

 

 

I have plenty of interdependence - for example I have a toon that can make bricks, but I'd rather buy them. I'm not arguing against people being able to play how they want to play, I'm arguing against adding up more and more penalties to people just doing their thing, in order to satisfy other people who want MORE from them.

 

Here, think of it this way. I enjoy breeding animals. There's not a big market for them though, the ECONOMY of my desired game play is lacking. People can buy one horse, care for it, and it lasts them their entire game career. BUT I WANT TO SELL MORE ANIMALS. Ok everyone, no more caring for for your mounts. You have to buy a new horse from me every month. Yay, I can sell more horses! My ECONOMY is now improved, and I a now a more robust MERCHANT! Also, horses is not enough. I like to breed all kinds of animals. The bison drawing your wagons are going to die every month also, and you need to buy four more from me every month. And what about my other animals. I know! In addition to paying for your deed every month, you need to sacrifice a certain quality amount of bred animals also to maintain the deed. If it's a five-speed animal, you get X points. If it's a five-speed wild animal, you get Y points. Wow, I feel so much better now! I will have so much more interdependence amongst my neighbors, everyone can group together with me and buy more of my animals! The game must be adjusted in this way so I can have more happiness selling to all of you.

 

[Pashka 707]

Ok.  Some folks want to only use merchants in their local area.  (They can do that without forcing others to do the same.)  Some want folks to be in large villages.  (Again, this is something that can be done without forcing others to do the same.)  I do not see the problem with people playing exactly how they want to.

 

Why do you want to force that on people that do not wish to do it?  Is it just that you do not have enough self control to play the game the way you want if you see others that aren't forced to do it your way?