Add Settlement Hire Option; Spirit Trader

[Raybarg 442]

Just like we have the spirit guard(s), which we can hire as many as we will, in quite similar way we could hire a spirit trader but only one, not multiple. Hiring cost would be 25s, and it would cost 2s per month (added to upkeep cost) to maintain, similar way as one spirit guard costs 1s.

 

This Spirit Trader would stand next to token, or walk around in 5x5 area where token is in the middle so it would seem quite similar to those spirit guards who come to stare at you while youre digging in the far edge of your deed.

 

This spirit trader would function just as normal trader, selling all same items, receiving kingdom funds, and in similar manner either put money to deed upkeep or its pocket.

 

For deeds which have trader(s) as villagers, or deeds which have a trader standing in the deeded tiles, the spirit trader hiring would fail because the spirit "Does not feel like having competition."

 

This spirit trader could be put away into the spirit world in a state that it could be called back at any time, so while it would be put away, it would cost no upkeep, would not be around, would not accumulate funds from the kingdom. Just to give option to reduce upkeep cost, but not lose that initial 25s hiring cost. If deed is disbanded with hired spirit trader, it would simply be lost like trader villagers do now.

 

 

With this change, no touching the traders, just adding an option to make it possible anyone to have a trader.

 

The numbers (costs), the spirit trader behavior, are simple examples out of my thin mind serving just a filling components to make the representation of this idea more complete to understand. These variables would ofcourse be subject to decision of the developers if idea of giving this additional settlement functionality seems like something that could be added to the game.

[rosedragon 2,282]

so 3s minimum a month for maintaining this spirit trader.. making players have to use the trader carefully to make it profitable . I am not sure if I am agree or disagree with this so I will see what others think before giving my vote.

[Raybarg 442]

so 3s minimum a month for maintaining this spirit trader.. making players have to use the trader carefully to make it profitable . I am not sure if I am agree or disagree with this so I will see what others think before giving my vote.

 

You do understand that the point which you brought up was explained to be as an example and subject to developers decisions?

[joedobo 1,187]

I'd argue 40s purchase with no upkeep. Current traders don't have monthly upkeep, well we could consider the 1s upkeep on a ghost trader deed kinda like upkeep. I'd find it hard to believe folks would be fooled by the initial lower purchase cost and buy one of these. Keep in mind that traders actually cost 38s. 25% of the 50s stays on the trader (assuming none of that 12.5 went to deed taxation) and can be immediately drained away.

 

How about letting us purchase multiple shares for a single spirit trader? You would pay say 4g to get a single spirit trader that receives 10 times what a single trader gets. It would be like placing 10 traders.

 

What should the minimum spacing be? For current traders minimum spacing is very large. I like the idea that spirit traders wouldn't be subject to spacing.

 

How would folks lock up the spirit trader? Folks will be less likely to buy these if they can't stop freeloaders from leeching off their purchase. 

[Raybarg 442]

I'd argue 40s purchase with no upkeep. Current traders don't have monthly upkeep, well we could consider the 1s upkeep on a ghost trader deed kinda like upkeep. I'd find it hard to believe folks would be fooled by the initial lower purchase cost and buy one of these. Keep in mind that traders actually cost 38s. 25% of the 50s stays on the trader (assuming none of that 12.5 went to deed taxation) and can be immediately drained away.

 

How about letting us purchase multiple shares for a single spirit trader? You would pay say 4g to get a single spirit trader that receives 10 times what a single trader gets. It would be like placing 10 traders.

 

What should the minimum spacing be? For current traders minimum spacing is very large. I like the idea that spirit traders wouldn't be subject to spacing.

 

How would folks lock up the spirit trader? Folks will be less likely to buy these if they can't stop freeloaders from leeching off their purchase. 

 

The numbers were there as examples, not as suggestions. I also thought about 1s upkeep, higher hiring cost, I went trough many options, then I decided that its nonsense for a player like me to try "choose" what the costs are, its up to Rolf and/or his team.

 

Locking up the spirit trader... would it be nice if you could have a permission setting to "Spirit trader accepts trades" which you can give to Everyone or villagers or allies or created role? Or if they would allways be selling, but the option would let you choose who can drain it? There is plenty of options to think of.

[rosedragon 2,282]

@raybarg: yes. I mean if im agree or disagree to the mechanic you propose, with trader tax and such .

@joedobo: I though you are anti trader, but now I see you as greedy enough to propose multiple shares o.O ...

Also I see why ray brought up the upkeep cost, so if trader is inactive, it will be gone with a deed disband.. people who ran multiple deeds for traders will have to be more active and no one could take advantage of inactive traders.

[Raybarg 442]

Also I see why ray brought up the upkeep cost, so if trader is inactive, it will be gone with a deed disband.. people who ran multiple deeds for traders will have to be more active and no one could take advantage of inactive traders.

 

I brought it up with intuitive thinking, you put it into words better than I could have. Its like "Yeah, YEAH! Thats why I brought it up!"

 

Thanks for such an enlightening elaboration.

[joedobo 1,187]

I decided that its nonsense for a player like me to try "choose" what the costs are, its up to Rolf and/or his team.

 

You obviously have a lot more faith in them then I do.  The pricing does need to make since so folks actually use it. I guess as long as we stipulate that overall or long term pricing needs to be at least equal if not more favorable to current traders it work out ok.

[joedobo 1,187]

@joedobo: I though you are anti trader, but now I see you as greedy enough to propose multiple shares o.O ...

 

Letting players buy multiple shares would mean players don't take up space with ghost trader deeds. Also, how does that comment contribute to the idea?

[Raybarg 442]

You obviously have a lot more faith in them then I do.  The pricing does need to make since so folks actually use it. I guess as long as we stipulate that overall or long term pricing needs to be at least equal if not more favorable to current traders it work out ok.

 

You are right, I have good (great) faith in them. Afterall, they have made wurm what it is now and continue making it better. (Many of us might disagree with small details if they are making wurm better or not, but thats just our subjective opinions speaking, and huge player riots has proven to be effective to steer the changes from being mainly negative to everyone).

 

Myself, I like the idea of more dynamic and iterative development where there is no targets or schedules, only an "evolution" cycle with trials and errors. Wurm team is doing great in that perspective.

 

So, if we (the players) start to debate about such a minor detail (in context of a feature in game) as the costs, we will never get any kind of agreement, that is also why I would like to just have my faith in the Wurm team to type in the prices, we then just deal with it, or riot in forums and it might be changed.

[Raybarg 442]

Letting players buy multiple shares would mean players don't take up space with ghost trader deeds. 

 

I think that idea should be in consideration of the developers IF they would choose to add something like this to the game. My initial idea of limiting the spirit trader to just one per deed, there could be considerable alternatives to this, to allow what you are proposing. With the example prices as 25s and 2s/month, one player could "buff" the spirit trader but it would cost 25s and add 2s/month upkeep per "buff". Its a wild idea but I think it should be in consideration.

[Raybarg 442]

Heh, I even thought that Courier spell could be cast on a merchant stand, which would be prerequisite to hire a spirit trader. Spirit trader would then take position in that stand. With Joedobos ideas the stand could have several different models for "how many shares" it has. Wealthy snorting filthy rich players could show off their 50s upkeep cost super spirit trader with a stand littered with chests overfilled with coins.

[Protunia 735]

While its interesting to see your idea...I am not in favor of anything resembling more Traders that people pay for that no one else can use to soak more money from the kings funds gathered from players spending coin at open traders and paying upkeep without a trader.

 

I do kind of like the idea of less tiles being taken up from traders which would give more players an option to have one.

 

In the end I would prefer other methods being added to distribute a portion of kings funds gathered from all players.

 

Like missions, tasks, mobs drops, etc.....similar to priests praying and getting a few coins here and there just expanded into more area's of game play to make the game more fun and interesting for players.

[Raybarg 442]

In the end I would prefer other methods being added to distribute a portion of kings funds gathered from all players.

 

Like missions, tasks, mobs drops, etc.....similar to priests praying and getting a few coins here and there just expanded into more area's of game play to make the game more fun and interesting for players.

 

Feel free to make your own suggestion thread explaining what you have in mind about those.

[rosedragon 2,282]

Letting players buy multiple shares would mean players don't take up space with ghost trader deeds. Also, how does that comment contribute to the idea?

No it doesn't contribute to the idea. It is my question to you. It might not take up space, but it back to the trader-monopolize situation you so against to.

[joedobo 1,187]

No it doesn't contribute to the idea. It is my question to you. It might not take up space, but it back to the trader-monopolize situation you so against to.

I don't let my personal opinions interfere with the merits of an idea. I'm not going to "-1" this just because it isn't a suggestion to remove traders and distributes the subsidy equally amongst each paying customer. There is potential here to improve the system. Given its not a change being vastly different than current mechanics the pro-trader group might see it as an acceptable compromise.

[yarnevk 257]

I already proposed a monthly contract for traders paying a premium level fee where the average trader is skilled at getting average deed upkeep back, and if they do not continue the fee there is no deed upkeep distributed, but they still get discounted kingdom items and the trade tax.   The purpose of making it a monthly contract is that Rolf is now in control of the discount play that trader players get, rather than the current situation of infinite profits after mere months of payback.   Think of it as the trader premium account that cost more just like the silver+premium account cost more, but the trader premium account is taking a risk for even more silver than they could have bought on the shop for the same cash.

 

However I cannot see two trader systems where the only difference is how you pay coexisting, mostly because of the geography rules means every deed cannot have a trader in the first place, and if you nerf that then the old traders would complain their payouts are nerfed with more traders closer to them than when they bought it.   You would have to convert old traders for the system to work.   This is the only reason you have a high initial cost and a low monthly fee is you are trying to make it suitable for existing traders to swallow, but they will never accept someone getting the same benefit that paid into the system differently in the first place, and why would anyone new buy a spirit trader that has limited profit due to montly fee when they can buy an old trader for infinite profit after mere months?.   So you have to change the payment structure of the existing trader entirely to actually come up with something that will actually work, two systems cannot co-exist, reimburse the old traders with sleep powder and convert them to the new trader if they want it still.

Edited May 16, 2013 by yarnevk

[Jarosz 189]

2s a month for 12 months = 24 silver.  plus the initial 25 silver upfront cost = 49 silver.  So after 1 year, you have paid nearly the equivilant of 50 silver for the standard Trader.

 

What this means is that, someone who can't afford the 50s upfront cost of current traders could in fact get into the buisness with 25 silver and a 2s upkeep.  The down side is that the "spirit" trader isn't securable like the 50s trader.  And that anyone who walks through the deed could trade with it.

 

You could very well "expand" the spirit traders roaming distance well outside the perimeter of a deed as well.  This forces the trader to be "public"

 

If every "trader drainer" hater is as benevolant as they make themselves out to be, they would purchase these instead to benefit wurm.  The "risk" of not getting silver is the benefit of giving everyone an equal chance at getting the silver on the trader.  Kind of like chasing the easter bunny... Brilliant.

[Martynas5 435]

 

With this change, no touching the traders, just adding an option to make it possible anyone to have a trader.

 

 

 

Anyone can have trader, just don't be lazy and invest time if you don't have money.

 

-1

[Amadee 1,543]

Interesting idea.  It would certainly allow more people to have a trader due to cost and spacing constraints.  

 

One downside I can see though is that it would only be a matter of time before the trader haters started creating uproars about the fact that "grandfathered in" traders don't have monthly upkeep.  It would be the same old venom spewing.  And in addition, they'd still have their panties in a bunch over those who opted to purchase a spirit trader getting what they perceive to be "their" money.  Of course with more traders out there, it would spread the hate a bit.  lol

[yarnevk 257]

Amadee

 

For someone crying about abusive speech towards yourself being a trader you sure are very good at the  'venom spewing' 'panties in a bunch' 'hate' vitriol yourself,... A real shame in a thread from someone trying to come up with compromise solutions with objective views rather than subjective opinions.

 

The issue is you cannot have two similar payment systems for what is essentially the same thing, you are better off modifying the system to eliminate the possibility of abuse, and a monthly fee is a way to do that, grandfather in prior traders the first X months is free or sleep powder to account for the prior trader purchase.  You also have to change the payout schedule, because the trader/deeder ratio based payouts  no longer works if more people have traders because of easier buy-in and having fluctuations if it can be hired/fired like a guard, and if it ignores the spacing rules.  Changing to make the average payout the average deed upkeep solves the problems that the trader/deeder ratio causes, but everyone has to be on the same system for something like that to work.  

Edited May 16, 2013 by yarnevk

[Raybarg 442]

Anyone can have trader, just don't be lazy and invest time if you don't have money.

 

-1

 

So, eh. The very reason this idea sprouted in my mind was the fact that someone living in a deed, very sizable if you will (something that would cost 20+ silver to relocate, for example). That deed then unfortunately being covered by neighboring traders distances. Yes, this someone could still have a trader by relocating the village or selling the village and founding new somewhere else or making throwaway one month prem alt to found secondary village.

 

Guess it is very complicated to see what EXACTLY in that example is being addressed.

[Jarosz 189]

Amadee

 

For someone crying about abusive speech towards yourself being a trader you sure are very good at the  'venom spewing' 'panties in a bunch' 'hate' vitriol yourself,... A real shame in a thread from someone trying to come up with compromise solutions with objective views rather than subjective opinions.

 

The issue is you cannot have two similar payment systems for what is essentially the same thing, you are better off modifying the system to eliminate the possibility of abuse, and a monthly fee is a way to do that, grandfather in prior traders the first X months is free or sleep powder to account for the prior trader purchase.  You also have to change the payout schedule, because the trader/deeder ratio based payouts  no longer works if more people have traders because of easier buy-in and having fluctuations if it can be hired/fired like a guard, and if it ignores the spacing rules.  Changing to make the average payout the average deed upkeep solves the problems that the trader/deeder ratio causes, but everyone has to be on the same system for something like that to work.  

 

Abuse is in the eye of the developer.  And if your definition of "abuse" is not the same as the Developer's then it is not abuse.

 

To have 2 different models with the pay out system is not impossible, for example:

 

Current Traders: 50s upfront cost 0 maintenance. permanent fixture in the game unless deed disbands (does not drain upkeep). Currently gets 100% of upkeep (minus the sink)

 

Suggested Spirit Trader 25s 2s/month (24 silver a year) maintenance.  Semi permanent Fixture based on upkeep funds (drains upkeep faster). Could get 10-50% of the upkeep pool if added.

 

For a 1 year cost, they equal about the same. After that, the Current trader is "free" (or 1 silver a month minimum) and the Spirit Trader is 2s/month + monthly upkeep (min 3s).  With the Spirit Trader draining out more silver while active, more silver is circulated (kind of like turning on Templars).

 

The Spirit Trader is a lot "safer" investment for those looking to only see if they want to continue playing the game (most people don't make it past 6 months).  If left on, and the player quit, the deed would disband much faster than if it wasn't turned on.  The Current Trader is a much safer low cost in the long run investment, and for those who see themselves playing for years to come.  Option C is "none of the above" for those who would rather just buy everything and not wait for silver to distribute back to them, or players who quit, or players who have no interest in Silver whatsoever.

 

All in all, very much implementable.  Stable.  Balanced. And has a lot more built in "sandbox" needed features that clear off the land of players that quit.

Edited May 16, 2013 by Jarosz

[Amadee 1,543]

Yarnevk. Unfortunately I saw my name in your post that Jarosz quoted.  Otherwise I never would have seen it.  

 

Just for the record, I posted directly to the op on his idea and expressed that I think it's an interesting idea, and why I think it's interesting.  I then pointed out what, to me, would be the major downside.

 

I didn't mention any names but if the shoe fits, wear it, if not then you have nothing to complain about in my posts.   For future reference, & just so you know, if you're going to be addressing anything to me personally I probably won't see it since I've had you on ignore for quite some time now.

 

To the op, my apologies for the slight derail here but had to say it since once again I'm being addressed personally and by name for the purpose of insult.  For clarification, since I don't always express myself in ways that make my intention clear, I like your idea. I don't see any downsides to it other than what I expressed in my other post.

[yarnevk 257]

Jarosz

 

Put that spirit trader on Release.   He is untitled to the same upkeep pool as the regular trader on Release.   You are looking at the yearly price and saying it works, the problem is traders payback faster than a year.

 

The regular trader paid 50s and earns it back in two months.  The spirit trader pays 25s and 2s+2s = 29s and earns back 50s in two months. The regular trader feels like an idiot now because the spirit trader pays less, made the same and thus profited more.

 

The regular trader located out in the woods with his trader empire spread the required trader distance and of course there is always gaps as you cannot put the marker everywhere (in water, on cliffs, in caves) .  Now the spirit traders squeeze in between with their min deeds.  Now there is way more traders diluting the pool, and the carefully crafted trader empire crumbles because only the spirit trader is able to profit from the the lesser payouts because he paid less.

 

Now next year the spriit trader says I been an idiot, this regular trader is paying nothing a month, earned back his fee long time ago, and here I am paying 2s a month.

 

This is why the system has to be one way or the other so that those competing for the same upkeep do so on the same cost basis, or you go with the other idea that spirit traders do not get distributed upkeep and they are paid for only monthly. Then you have to balance the pricing so they are affordable for the public/village trader that earns only kingdom item and bartered trade taxes because that is a low profit public service now.  

 

If the spirit trader is allowed to violate the spacing rules and is cheaper in the short run, then you pretty much have to deny them access to the upkeep because it is the high price and spacing rules that limits the traders from diluting the pool in the first place because it is not easily accessible to all.   For those that want to use the trader as just a trader, that would be an OK tradeoff.

Edited May 16, 2013 by yarnevk