Odynn

Traders. What? When? Where?

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, Ecrir said:

 

Traders will give a percentage based deed upkeep reduction after the changes, so you will continue to get a return on your investment and it will help with the maintenance of your deed, exactly what you said you bought the trader for. So what is the problem?

 

 

On 2/3/2020 at 7:22 PM, gorgian said:

I'd just like to add, retro did talk a bit about traders in his video(It's time for the Wurm Online Community Stream! Grab a coffee or tea and sit down with Retro as he returns to his roots on Independence) the other day.  About 41ish mins in, and 49is mins in.  By the sounds of it, if the min. upkeep is 1 silver there may not be discount with a trader on deed.  But the team still has to come to a decision on this as I gather also gather. 

 

Hope this helps people. 

 

Well, this ^ is a big part of it.

 

There is a massive difference between people who have been running 3s+ deeds for free for several years and folk who bought a trader in the last six months - heck even the last year. The suggested changes for me, for example, means either running a bigger deed than I need to earn a discount on deed costs from my trader (i.e. spend more money each month to make my trader have any silver value in my gameplay) or a 1s size deed at probably no discount. Even on a 1s deed (which is plenty for most folk who are going it solo) if we could earn a 25% discount on upkeep, for example (and it sounds like the trader discount won't apply to those deeds, but let's say it did), that means a trader is 'worth' 25c/month as an investment, which will take a full 200 months to pay for itself. That's more than 15 years. That's my problem.

What was widely considered an already slow investment but an investment which most committed players made, nonetheless, which helped to cover my deed and pay for materials to expand it at a rate of, these days, maybe 2-3s/mo was going to at least pay for itself in 2 years. It'll now take 10-20 years (depending on discount level, if one even applies to me).

Edited by crimsonearth
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wogic grows stronk with new changes, we're yet to learn where they come from... and hopefully add 2 more experienced people around that source.. to filter and fix the 'good' ideas before implementation and pushing more people away 🙄

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Retrograde said:

The potential for abuse is the ability to sell them on and essentially create a massive flood. That's not what traders are for. 

 

The way I believe it will work best is one time trader relocation for traders that were placed because they could not fit on the main deed, not for multiple traders. 

 

I'm open to feedback on that idea, but we do not want this to become an opportunity for profit or advantage by selling them to someone else to have moved to their deed, so it would require significant rigidity 

 

Trouble with that is you are thinking players only have one deed... or the change won't force them to split / resize down their deeds to better fit the new system and their income.

 

Then... WHAT FLOOD?! I mean, traders are now useless unless you own a big deed for the upkeep reduction... and then what... if you sell them, the coins will remain in Wurm, in CCAB pockets since RMT is banned.

 

Feedback is basicly : allow players who have spent money on wurm to remain on wurm by giving them back what they bought... and not leave the game being totally disgrunted and disgusted by how they are treated.

 

1 hour ago, Ecrir said:

Traders will give a percentage based deed upkeep reduction after the changes, so you will continue to get a return on your investment and it will help with the maintenance of your deed, exactly what you said you bought the trader for. So what is the problem?

 

Traders before = free upkeep up to a certain amount + potentially spare coins

VS

traders now = we don't know a damn thing yet and probably won't before its too late and we only have our eyes left to cry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wanted to add my history/story with Traders. Done a few, it bought me some really good coffee, and maple sugar candies every now and then. I can live without those luxuries fine, they were a nice reward. Currently I have 6 deeds on Indy, all have one Trader and were set up for the sole purpose of draining money that I put back into my current 40s a month upkeep cost (down from prolly 65s at one time including Deli and Xanadu deeds).  I only did this Trader thing when I was actively playing.  This new Trader process will automate that for me, I thank you. I never had "milking deeds". Every deed has it's purpose. Housing, Farm, Animal Breeding, Mine/Market, Special Event, and my old original Xanadu deed which is used as hunting and housing for waywards. My upkeep used to be a lot more, but as cut backs to Trader payouts came,  I cut back on deed sizes. It's now gotten to the point that I've cut back most of those 6 deeds, to the size of "trader milking", ironically.  Your own Trader cut backs have made me turn my useful non milking sized deeds, into milking sized deeds. Action, reaction. If I had a say. I'd want a 50% deed upkeep reduction for deeds with a Trader. After negotiations, I'd likely settle for a 30% upkeep discount.

 

Thank you Odynn for making this topic.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gumbo said:

My upkeep used to be a lot more, but as cut backs to Trader payouts came,  I cut back on deed sizes. It's now gotten to the point that I've cut back most of those 6 deeds, to the size of "trader milking", ironically.  Your own Trader cut backs have made me turn my useful non milking sized deeds, into milking sized deeds. Action, reaction. If I had a say. I'd want a 50% deed upkeep reduction for deeds with a Trader. After negotiations, I'd likely settle for a 30% upkeep discount.

 

The trouble of the % is how poorly it will reflect on the current cost of a deed with a trader (speaking of one trader per deeds per the new system) and how it used to be. Up to 3s per month, the % would have been 100%... but when we go to crazier size deed (for various reasons that have been mentionned a bit everywhere), the % can go quite low around 10/15 %. Those who used many traderS to offset the upkeep cost would probably like a higher % reduction seeing that the new system will make the game more expensive.

 

One of my original thoughts was around the idea of allowing MULTIPLE traders on a deed to push the % reduction farther (i will leave the equation to better mathematicians...) with the idea of going toward a lower price (maybe between 1 and 5s) not to make the deeds utterly free like they used to be but still valid to keep the players playing (and in the end paying CCAB instead of leaving the game altogether).

 

One of my suggestion, back when the traders deed trouble was still a trouble, was to limit the traders income to the upkeep of their deeds. With a cap at 5s per traders and still allowing you to have multiple traders on the deed, giving you something like <upkeep divided by traders amount = income per traders>. Being capped at 5s... it would have been up to the owner to add more, spending cash to reduce their upkeep... This would have also killed the issue of traders draining since min size deeds would have granted 1s per month and made the traders true to their original nature of large upkeep offset.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Retrograde said:

The potential for abuse is the ability to sell them on and essentially create a massive flood. That's not what traders are for. 

 

The way I believe it will work best is one time trader relocation for traders that were placed because they could not fit on the main deed, not for multiple traders. 

 

I'm open to feedback on that idea, but we do not want this to become an opportunity for profit or advantage by selling them to someone else to have moved to their deed, so it would require significant rigidity 

Why not make them like tents that you cannot trade to another toon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a conundrum issue. 

 

- A one time relocation is part of the solution yes. ( but, give a deadline, only valid till X date) .

 

page break    ------  drink from Wurm cup !!

 

Things I would allow or not, list below:

 

1 - A Trader on a deed.   

    The deed owner would get the trader. (this only applies to deeds that have not changed ownership since the day of the announced changes coming RTM &    Traders, ext) This would minimizes the flood in this area.) If a player has changed it after set date a GM could look in to it. example changed ownership from      same account alt to alt. And that the alt is not a new chr after set announced changes to  RTM&Traders. This will minimize flood this way, example players rushing to make alts.

 

2 - Any trader off deed. 

     The person that placed that trader should get that trader back in inventory (as long as that trader is A - in the wild no building on him/her,  or B - in wild and player owns that building and that trader.

 

3 - If someone has just placed a trader down after set announcement of RTM&Traders. They should not get a transfer. They knew what was coming.

 

4 -  Due to the dramatic change of traders system. They should be able to cross servers like merchants. with the exception of not being able to cross pvp to pve and pve to pvp

 

page break    ------  drink from Wurm cup !!

 

 

5 - all traders are chr. bond. so no trading option sell off this way. 

 

6 - placing of trader on a deed player owned deed,  that has not changed ownership since the announces changes of RTM & Traders.  ( exceptions are always there similar to point 1 GM can look in to it.)

 

7 -  Time limit

       Again all above except 3, subject to a time limit of relocation. (send out email to everyone so you dont get the argument: "I didn't know of relocation option.")

 

 

Maybe others could add on, or change some ideas.  Or I am just way out in left field. IDK

 

Hope this helps. ;)  Drink from Wurm cup again!

Edited by gorgian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, gorgian said:

Any trader off deed. 

     The person that placed that trader should get that trader back in inventory (as long as that trader is A - in the wild no building on him/her,  or B - in wild and player owns that building and that trader.

 

trouble with that one is the fact wild traders not attached to any deeds will dissapear with the update (if i read properly retro news)... which also increase the trouble of disbanding / resizing deeds... for now, the only thing we are sure of is the deadline when all the traders will become mostly useless or just dissapear into thin air

 

12 hours ago, gorgian said:

3 - If someone has just placed a trader down after set announcement of RTM&Traders. They should not get a transfer. They knew what was coming.

.

I trully hope no poor soul bought one after the announcement... Specially knowing said announcement warned about a traders price drop.

 

12 hours ago, gorgian said:

5 - all traders are chr. bond. so no trading option sell off this way. 

 

At this point (and regarding some of your others points), i'd rather see traders working just like the merchants NPC and their contracts. They won't bring any income, they will just offer an upkeep reduction and the classical trader goods. With RMT gone, no one will be able to make real cash out of them. Why not just have the possibility to relocate them in case of deed remodels... Or hell, worst case scenario, if you have too many sell them to pay your actual upkeep... Knowing that people will probably not be interested in one anymore.

 

I'd also suggest that any newly placed traders (before the RMT announcement) get the option of a partial refund (cash value depending on how long that trader have been active) knowing that it's a huge net loss for the players... as quoted in this thread... and which also happened to players who didn't raise their voice or made it known on the forums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only other think i could think of is. Have the old traders be less effective with the % reduction on deeds. I know its not perfect all around, but in a round about way kind of meets everyone's needs.  

 

Players will get a smaller slight percentage reduction then the newer sold traders.

Wurm will sell new better percentage reduction traders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, gorgian said:

The only other think i could think of is. Have the old traders be less effective with the % reduction on deeds. I know its not perfect all around, but in a round about way kind of meets everyone's needs.  

 

Nah, that would be another kick in the face, specially for those which traders entirelly paid their upkeep. As said by others players in the main thread, either go for an upkeep reduction for everyone (COMMUNISM IS GREAT!!!) or don't split hairs between old and new traders.

 

We have to remember that we first PAID for the land (some even paid twice as much as the current price when they reduced the tile pricing) and then we have to pay a monthly upkeep on it. And I should say a rather large upkeep for something we allegedly bought, while this is necessary to filter and get rid of the unused deeds, it's still an expense for the every day player... and an expense that will lead a good amount of 'public' deeds to disband since no one will be willing to take care of them anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have anybody released exact benefit of having a trader ondeed yet?

 

Or that's to come as news next month?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In future trader will just be an investment you put on your deed, along with paying for deed or perimeter tiles. If you disband the deed the investment is gone.

 

It only make sense to be able to relocate the trader within deed borders.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sandyar said:

In future trader will just be an investment you put on your deed, along with paying for deed or perimeter tiles. If you disband the deed the investment is gone.

 

Well, that's where I think you are wrong... A trader is an investment, just like a merchant or a large magic chest... when you disband the deed, both stays... so it would be wise for the trader to follow the same rule.

 

7 hours ago, Sandyar said:

It only make sense to be able to relocate the trader within deed borders.

 

With the new system a trader will have to be relocated within deed borders for it to reduce upkeep. Having a possibility to revert the traders to their contract, just like the merchants would allow that while keeping the staff intervention to a minimum. The new system need to be both FAIR and FLEXIBLE!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Odynn said:

 

Well, that's where I think you are wrong... A trader is an investment, just like a merchant or a large magic chest... when you disband the deed, both stays... so it would be wise for the trader to follow the same rule.

 

 

With the new system a trader will have to be relocated within deed borders for it to reduce upkeep. Having a possibility to revert the traders to their contract, just like the merchants would allow that while keeping the staff intervention to a minimum. The new system need to be both FAIR and FLEXIBLE!

The only why i can see this working with out flooding the market. Trader writ are bond to chr. 2nd a deed can not be transferred over to an other player with a Trader placed that deed. 3rd a deed has to be owned by the player that wants to place a Trader. 

 

This would fulfill the needs of the dev team in the terms of not having a flood of traders being sold. So even if a person has 50 traders, and only 5 deeds. He/she can only use the 5.  If the person wants the extra slot space in players inv. (could even make the writs weigh a lot). They can just sell back to token with no coin value.

 

I'm guessing the new system of traders will be like a consumable once used gone. (This part i can see both side of the argument, but can tie in to the above suggestions.) With this in mind, the old trader writs could have a limit time of use. Thus limiting the one time use transfer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Sandyar said:

In future trader will just be an investment you put on your deed, along with paying for deed or perimeter tiles. If you disband the deed the investment is gone.

 

It only make sense to be able to relocate the trader within deed borders.

 

no.. it actually makes sense.. to get the trader to be a permanent addition to that deed contract... and if it falls.. to get the deed scroll back.. with the traders... if it's going to poof.. but not in new wurm policy.. as it is now..

 

it's not that uncommon to miss your upkeep rent payment and to poof your deed... than login minutes/hours/days later to redeed it... 30euro might be symbolic for some .. but I do not see anyone throwing 30 euro at me for no reason.. I'd guess people do care about their 30euros than hm.. well in future it's kind of proving to be a dumb investment... unless you're really well taking care of your rent and never miss a payment no matter the reason..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just going to complain a little, on behalf of xanadians (self nominated spokesperson)

We didn't have the traders available during the "money printing" era and it makes other servers have unfair advantage :P

(please take it as derisive humor)

What I mean - a player in Indy had enough time to place a trader on their deed, years ago, and milk it for all that time to get their money back tenfold.

Xanadu didn't have that option. And since it was an unintended feature not caused by players (for sooo many years), then.. I want a free trader! *rabble rabble*

 

But my honest opinion - as the hour drops, delete all traders outside starter deeds. After that, if anyone buys and plants one, the same person should be able to pick it up and relocate where ever they want; even trade to other player; just as personal merchant contracts.

Edited by Shmeric

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Shmeric said:

We didn't have the traders available during the "money printing" era and it makes other servers have unfair advantage

 

At an average of 3s per traders... knowing that if you drop one without a deed you will most likely get it stolen, you make 2s per month. A trader cost is 37s50... which takes you around 19 months to finally recoup your investment... that while you can easilly make up that kind of money (2+s per month)

by botanising / foraging / burying mobs.

 

True money printing era was before the nerfs and the traders abuses where you could get around 8 or 10s per month... but that's now years ago... when xanadu wasn't even a dream in rolf's mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Shmeric said:

But my honest opinion - as the hour drops, delete all traders outside starter deeds. After that, if anyone buys and plants one, the same person should be able to pick it up and relocate where ever they want; even trade to other player; just as personal merchant contracts.

I agree to a point,  But not very fair to those that just bought a trader in the past 2 years. This is one of the issues. 

 

Like what Odynn said the the true farms were long gone.

 

FYI there was a poll to have or not have traders on Xan. players voted not to have them BTW.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/7/2020 at 11:01 PM, Retrograde said:

The potential for abuse is the ability to sell them on and essentially create a massive flood. That's not what traders are for. 

 

The way I believe it will work best is one time trader relocation for traders that were placed because they could not fit on the main deed, not for multiple traders. 

 

I'm open to feedback on that idea, but we do not want this to become an opportunity for profit or advantage by selling them to someone else to have moved to their deed, so it would require significant rigidity 

How about making them untradeable, like mirrors? You let there be a writ for them like a merchant, and the player that has the writ is unable to trade it, ever, just like a mirror is untradeable. That would prevent the sale or transfer of Traders while allowing owners to reposition them as needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tick tock... on valentines day i hope for a message of love... love for our traders... or well... any news really... 2 weeks left or so and still no news. Can we get some love... or infos, pretty please?!

 

PS. Don't force me to add plenty of hearts emotes!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My trader was giving me so small cash that I don't even bother visit him anymore.

 

So if they make him lowering upkeep, even a little, would be a plus for me.

 

Also would be nice if I could reposition or even rename him, don't know why it is forbidden.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Odynn said:

Tick tock... on valentines day i hope for a message of love... love for our traders... or well... any news really... 2 weeks left or so and still no news. Can we get some love... or infos, pretty please?!

 

PS. Don't force me to add plenty of hearts emotes!

At least this made me smile :) Odynn, the lack of response to this issue has been a bit weird.   I also hope  the playerbase gets  some answers, and not just because I have an interest in the outcome for people with traders, but also because it may give a clear indication of things to come.  Happy Valentine's Day to you ❤️ 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/6/2020 at 8:07 PM, Retrograde said:

 

As for the relocation, we're looking into the possibility and how it can be done without being abused. If it can be done it would likely be only one trader moved due to the inability for one to have been placed on the main deed due to the 50 tile limit

Certainly I would appreciate this option since I was not able to put a trader directly on my deed (she sits in my perimeter) due to the closeness of 1 neighbour's trader and the proximity of a 'milking deed' off my northern perimeter.  If it comes down to it, I will resize my deed to put her inside the boundary, however, based cost and upkeep of those tiles I'll probably end up re configuring the shape of the deed to make it all work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Retrograde said:

As previously stated, traders will be reworked to no longer pay out silvers based on kingdom coffers and ratio, but instead reduce upkeep of the deed they are on by a fixed percentage. They will reduce deed upkeep by 20% and instead of being limited by a tile range will simply be one trader per deed.

 

Yikes, just yikes, 20% is absolutely horrible when it comes to deed upkeep, specially for those which traders completely paid their deeds previously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Odynn said:

 

Yikes, just yikes, 20% is absolutely horrible when it comes to deed upkeep, specially for those which traders completely paid their deeds previously.

 

And it's completely incredible for people with big deeds on servers like Xanadu, whom couldn't even use traders on their deed until now. I know I can't wait to get myself one for my deed now.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.