Just Wondering

[Drevar]

I like the idea of creating trade hubs in addition to the existing portal hub. I am wondering if it is possible to keep the Imperial consigners in the locations they are now, but make them non-global, and then in the hubs make them global and website searchable.

The reason I would like to see the consigners remain in non-hubs is simply for the sake of immersion. Tazoon is supposed to be the biggest, most bustling city, yet it is essentially abandoned. Don't start putting other racial capitals into the same situation.

Drev

[Velea]

This is just an idea, so don't take it as something anyone is doing...

I saw somewhere on one of the threads (may have been this one, but I'm not seeing it in a quick skim) where someone suggested the removal of any "back to the vault" timer on consignment merchants. In other words, once an item was placed on there, it would remain until sold or removed by the person having listed it.

If balancing this out would require a lowering of how many items any one subscriber could have at a time, would that be an acceptable compromise? The time limit would be removed, but you could have fewer items listed at any one time, in other words.

[Deth]

If that is done, which does not sound bad what about a pentalty fee for removing stack items from the consigner to help stop or slow down using the consigner as bulk storage?

[Velea]

There already is a fee for placing the items on the consigner. Why a fee to remove them? If you put them on there and then removed them later from that self same consigner, the fee for early removal would have been that you didn't get anything back when you listed it. If someone wants to use a consigner as bulk storage, the thought of having it take up one of their slots combined with the fee to list the item is probably enough to make them consider an alternate storage source, I'd think.

[Unicorn's Lady]

This is just an idea, so don't take it as something anyone is doing...

I saw somewhere on one of the threads (may have been this one, but I'm not seeing it in a quick skim) where someone suggested the removal of any "back to the vault" timer on consignment merchants. In other words, once an item was placed on there, it would remain until sold or removed by the person having listed it.

If balancing this out would require a lowering of how many items any one subscriber could have at a time, would that be an acceptable compromise? The time limit would be removed, but you could have fewer items listed at any one time, in other words.

Umm...one small squawk about this suggestion. How lowered will the amount be?

The reason is I do a weekly restock of T1 spells (1 copy of each) on New Trismus (1-10 level) and Kion (11-19) on Order. If you lower the amount we can put on a consigner, will I be able to but out a full list of spells for the new players? (I'm the only person who still does this consistently on Order (it is always nice to see other spell restockers))

And I'll have the same problem with stocking beginning food as Nellie in New Trismus. (I've been on hiatus with food due to us moving everything down to Carmo, but we've just gotten finished moving the food supplies & I'll be back to restocking food in NT soon.)


If I can still stock a full list of T1 spells & put out a full list of T1 foods (new recipes & festival recipes, we don't have to include the old ones) at New Trismus for new players from a single acct., then I don't have a problem with this suggestion.

[Unicorn's Lady]

Crazy idea here, but WHAT IF.

1. There were ONLY three public imperial consigners in the world; New Trismus, Bristugo and a yet named/created Portal Hub.
2. At each of the two portal hubs there was a Sir Aidan NPC.
3. At each portal hub there was a tavern with a tavernkeeper.

Yes, its radical. Looking for opinions. (Please keep this thread civil)

Not too bad of an idea for Order. We pretty much use just NT and Aughendell at this time and I think many would enjoy having Dalimond's ladies moved to Bristugo.

But what about Chaos and Blight? Do they also only use New Trismus and Aughendell for most of their consignments?

[Velea]

Umm...one small squawk about this suggestion. How lowered will the amount be?

The reason is I do a weekly restock of T1 spells (1 copy of each) on New Trismus (1-10 level) and Kion (11-19) on Order. If you lower the amount we can put on a consigner, will I be able to but out a full list of spells for the new players? (I'm the only person who still does this consistently on Order (it is always nice to see other spell restockers))

And I'll have the same problem with stocking beginning food as Nellie in New Trismus. (I've been on hiatus with food due to us moving everything down to Carmo, but we've just gotten finished moving the food supplies & I'll be back to restocking food in NT soon.)


If I can still stock a full list of T1 spells & put out a full list of T1 foods (new recipes & festival recipes, we don't have to include the old ones) at New Trismus for new players from a single acct., then I don't have a problem with this suggestion.

That would depend on how many subscriptions you have. I don't believe right now that one person with only one subscription could do that anyway, but I'd have to check numbers to be certain.

[AmonGwareth]

Not too bad of an idea for Order. We pretty much use just NT and Aughendell at this time and I think many would enjoy having Dalimond's ladies moved to Bristugo.

But what about Chaos and Blight? Do they also only use New Trismus and Aughendell for most of their consignments?

Blight really is its own beast so it isn't taken into account.
Chaos uses Bristugo (they have a player consigner there) and New Trismus.

[Unicorn's Lady]

*Gives Amon and Velea a little kiss on the cheek for such a quick replies!*

[Unicorn's Lady]

That would depend on how many subscriptions you have. I don't believe right now that one person with only one subscription could do that anyway, but I'd have to check numbers to be certain.

Grin! Yes I can and yes, I do and only with 1 regular grandfathered acct. No extra bells or whistles on the acct. (Although I may be missing one or two rare/retired T1 spells, I do have almost all of them and I do restock them and the T1 foods each week)

[Velea]

In that case, it confirms what I suspected when you first ask the question.. consigner limits are bugged right now. Even with the limits set as they are now, you shouldn't be able to put up every single T1 spell with just one subscription on your account.

[Knossos]

It would seem that there are "good bugs" and "bad bugs" much as there are "good bacteria" and "bad bacteria". So antibiotics are noted to not only kill "bad bacteria" but also kill those "good bacteria" which are essential to the digestive process. Accordingly, hope removal of the connie limit "bug" does not upset the digestive process of Istaria...

Knossos

[Velea]

Eat more yogurt, Knossos. That helps restore the good bacteria.

[Knossos]

Spose the "connie bug" might be yogurt in disguise?

Knossos

[Smaug]

I like the 3 location proposal (Bris, NT, Aug) but other then that I'd rather it stay the way it is. Nothing wrong with way it works now.

Please don't "fix" yet another thing that people have been used to way it works for years just for the sake of making changes.

Smaug

[AmonGwareth]

Please don't "fix" yet another thing that people have been used to way it works for years just for the sake of making changes.

We aren't making changes just to make changes.

[Smaug]

Sorry didn't mean to offend, just sometimes it seems that way.

Examples, we lived with the same DP system for years. All of a sudden it gets changed. Longer times to clear and removing (or working to remove) ambrosia. Now I know (assume) reason was to make confectioners wares desirable, which in itself I don't mind buying the food so much. What I do mind is having to set in a tavern for 30 minutes or so to clear each point. The 10 minutes between meals to me wasn't needed.

Making certain items attuned that forever wasn't that way, like boars masks and the vengence scales. All that does (in my opinion, not shared by all I'm sure) is to make "haves" and "have nots" since only way to get them was by being given by veterans, as new ones can't be found/made. Some may not feel this way (usually but not always the "has") but for life of me I can't see how changing these improved my gameplay.

The discussion in removing Nada. Now I don't think I ever have bought anything from her (well maybe once) but I like idea she there just in case I ever get rich enough and can afford her prices. She certainly doesnt, again in my opinion, set a cap on prices cause I would never pay a player even what she charges much less more. I'd just do without I guess.

I shouldn't of said just for sake of making changes, my appologies. I'm sure somebody somewhere always thinks every change is good and needed. Sorry for getting somewhat off topic, I'll get off my soap box now, and head back in game to set in a tavern for couple hours, I have 4 or 5 dp to clear I think.

Smaug

[AmonGwareth]

Sorry didn't mean to offend, just sometimes it seems that way.

Examples, we lived with the same DP system for years. All of a sudden it gets changed. Longer times to clear and removing (or working to remove) ambrosia. Now I know (assume) reason was to make confectioners wares desirable, which in itself I don't mind buying the food so much. What I do mind is having to set in a tavern for 30 minutes or so to clear each point. The 10 minutes between meals to me wasn't needed.

Making certain items attuned that forever wasn't that way, like boars masks and the vengence scales. All that does (in my opinion, not shared by all I'm sure) is to make "haves" and "have nots" since only way to get them was by being given by veterans, as new ones can't be found/made. Some may not feel this way (usually but not always the "has") but for life of me I can't see how changing these improved my gameplay.

The discussion in removing Nada. Now I don't think I ever have bought anything from her (well maybe once) but I like idea she there just in case I ever get rich enough and can afford her prices. She certainly doesnt, again in my opinion, set a cap on prices cause I would never pay a player even what she charges much less more. I'd just do without I guess.

I shouldn't of said just for sake of making changes, my appologies. I'm sure somebody somewhere always thinks every change is good and needed. Sorry for getting somewhat off topic, I'll get off my soap box now, and head back in game to set in a tavern for couple hours, I have 4 or 5 dp to clear I think.

Smaug

You didn't offend. I have a very thick skin (its practically required, working in many customer-centered industries).

RE: Nadia
The goals are simple, to force more crafter-adventurer interdependency and to spur more exchanges of coin.

RE: Death Points
Again, the goals were simple. To make death have a meaning in the game and to encourage crafter-adventurer interdependency.

[Steelclaw]

It seems that there are two uses for consigners:
1) Long-term storage
2) Item sales
3) Vault stuffing gateway

I'm not going to go into whether #1 should be permitted or not, but it appears that improving #2 by increasing the consignment period also favors #1. That is probably undesirable, permitted or not.

As for #3, well, that seems like it's more of an undesirable side effect of not wanting to throw away someone's items simply because they didn't sell. It's worth noting that ncreasing the consignment duration could discourage #3.

It sounds like we're looking for something that can help #2 without favoring #1 or #3, nor inadvertently bankrupt someone's character.

Consider doing all of the following:

* Automatically relist unsold items on the consigner they are on. This will allow greater exposure. It does not, however, affect those using consigners for long-term storage. Automatic relisting can also prevent vault stuffing through consigners, but it has the potential to bankrupt a character if they forget they have something for sale. So in addition...

* Decrease the consignment period, say, to 7 days. This will increase the cost of using a consigner for long-term storage and will encourage people to put more effort into selecting where and what they sell.

* Limit the number of times an item can be automatically relisted, to, say, 4 times. Doing so will limit the damage caused by forgetting an item on a consigner, and can certainly put a limit on the duration an item stack may be "stored".

At this point, the suggested changes will allow items to be listed for a longer duration, increase the cost associated with doing so, and put a limit to the amount of damage recurring consignment fees can do.

But, what happens when the relisting limit is hit?

If the item stays on the consigner with no fee, well, that's free storage.
If the item goes to the character's vault, that continues to enable vault stuffing.
If the item gets deleted, the seller loses.
If the item is transported to another NPC, there's a potential to use that mechanism for transport.

Of course, some items are more important than others. I'd want stacks of T5 tech comps back if they didn't sell. I wouldn't care as much if a few weapon forms didn't come back.

To address the last issue, when the relisting limit is reached:

* Gathered, processed, and structure resources are purchased (pawned) by the consigner at their imperial coin value, modified by the tier of consigner, in accordance with the pawnbroker modifiers. The proceeds go back to the character who put the resources on the consigner.

* All other items (tech comps, spells, gear, forms, techs, etc.) go to the character's inventory (not vault). Exceeding a character's stack limit will not prevent movement; the character just won't be able to receive, loot or gather more items. Most of the items in this category tend to be small or lightweight, so overburdening is unlikely unless the character is short on bulk space or lots of items hit at the same time.

By putting certain unsold items back into the character's inventory, no "really important" ones are lost. In addition, the unsold items become something that needs to be dealt with sooner than later, rather than being safely tucked away in a vault.

By pawning resources instead of returning them to the character, the seller is at least somewhat compensated for their effort and the unintended consequences of returning the resources themselves can be avoided. (Vault stuffing or using the mechanism for transport)

[Alexzandria]

Ok i haave a very good idea to this problem. 1. remove the consign timer 2. place 3 consigners in the world Nt, Brist, Player voted according to server, ( player plot connies would remain). 3. When going to one of the world Connies Items on other 2 connies will be listed and for a fee (like shiping and handling) you could purches that item the cost could be equal or higher than the portal fee to go there your self. 4. reduce the Max listing per account to deture connie storage.