Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Alejandro

Ensign
  • Content Count

    45
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

9 Neutral

About Alejandro

  • Rank
    Landsmen
  • Birthday 10/14/1985

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    The Great White North

Contact Methods

  • Skype
    the_blackguard

Recent Profile Visitors

375 profile views
  1. If what prevents hyperinflation to occur is the mere fact that we can "cheat" the risk by using teleporting merchant ships, then there might be a problem with traders to begin with. Teleportation shouldn't be a fix for too-long distances or too much risk. Also, I'd expect the devs to introduce larger merchantmen in the future. I doubt a traders' snow is the largest we'll see. But even then, 800 units of something costly is nothing to scoff at, as profits go.
  2. Ah, the mention of the unwashed Steam masses; this forum's version of "we, blue-blooded aristocrats, do not meddle with the peasants". Has been happening for a week now.
  3. I put up 20. Fine, make it 1500. Why would Seller A, who placed his bid five minutes before Seller B, be penalized with goods that won't sell for the day simply because he placed his bid five minutes prior? He's active, he should be able to undercut. Also, your argument is invalid. EVE, and many other sandbox games, have economies who work, despite people being able to undercut each other. You're also not considering the fees. It wouldn't necessarily lead to bidding wars until oblivion. It wouldn't simply lead to a normalization of prices across given areas. And yes, it'd reward people who
  4. They shouldn't be. I haven't been hunting traders enough to comment on the chase itself, though, but I'd imagine some ships to be faster on the OW. That said, even if they somehow are, people shouldn't be allowed to simply transfer vast ammount of goods by teleporting every four hours. It completly removes one of the main aspect of a sandbox game (and, to me, the most interesting one, as PvP is definitely more interesting when there's something in play).
  5. How are you reading it as the solution when it's not even something I breached in my OP? I literally didn't touch the taxation system at all. Also, it's definitely possible to have bidding wars at the moment, as there is no information about the quantity of goods sold at a given price. So if Seller A comes up and puts up 1600 Iron pieces at 50 a piece, Seller B can come and put up 20 at 49. Then Seller B can wait until Seller A - who has no idea how many goods were put up at 49 - decides to remove his current contract to relist at 48. Seller B then undercut him again. Or hell, I can simp
  6. 1)Essentially, you'll have bidding wars and people will benefit from lower prices, up until one side decides it's cutting too much into his profit margin. Essentially, capitalism? This is already happening, just with a clunky mechanism in place, one that doesn't make any sense whatsoever and penalizes the seller who comes in early. 2)Easy. You put the taxation on transactions. Somebody buys from my coal at 50 a piece. I put up 50 pieces and sell 10 pieces, so 500 gold. The tax is 10%. Right now, the current mechanism would have me pay a 250g tax. The logical step would be to put the taxes
  7. -P2P trade system works when we have a small population. Right now, it's more of a complement and certainly not meant to be the only trading option. Otherwise, you'll see port/nation chat flooded with "WTS 200 coal". I'm definitely not in favour of spam. -In real life, you don't pay upfront as a seller. Companies pay taxes after a fiscal year. Not before they actually put up goods for sale. Would you imagine GM paying taxes at full for the 2.5m cars produced this year, before even selling them? -I'm not opposed to the tax system. That's not what my suggestion is about. I'm actually asking to
  8. Unrealistic and nonsensical. If the only trading system between players is to use contracts, contracts should have more options, especially ones that makes sense (like claiming the gold you got from your sales without removing the rest of your goods still on sale (and that you already paid for in taxes!)). As it is, the current contract system implies the use of a middleman. I tell him how much I want of an item or how much I'm willing to take for an item. The fact that I pay a sales tax upfront, before even selling items, is ridiculous. But let's agree to that part. Then, he should be ami
  9. As it is, there's only two options once you have placed a contract: to delete it and abandon the goods or to claim it back (take the gold and the goods). The problem is that, given that we pay a full sales tax before any item is actually sold (which is preposterous but we'll try to work around it), if somebody undercuts your contract, you're out of luck. You either have to hope that people buy that person's goods and then get to yours or you have to suck up the losses (because you paid the sales tax early), claim the contract (take your goods back) and relist them. I propose that we t
  10. Ships, gold and the likes shouldn't be mirrored. Only XP and even then. The problem goes as follows: Say I'm one of the crafters of my clan. My clan is on the most populous server. But hey, I'm a crafter. I could simply set up shop on one of the less populous servers, run my goods without risk, do my commerce over there, make easy money and then use that money on the main server. Or say my clan is into port captures. Port captures can pay a lot. We decide to stomp on a small server, go after easy pickings, isolated ports. Make a fortune. Bring back that money on server 1. Thos
  11. Simple. Being able to get in your merchant ship and teleport it back to the capital with your goods in your hold is disruptive to commerce, favors a completly-safe approach to moving goods (just wait once every 4 hours to move your most precious cargo, if not all of it) and removes an interesting PvP element from the Open World. I'm all for the teleports to outposts but one shouldn't be able to teleport if one has goods in his hold. Period.
  12. Would tend to agree. Repair mode should be repair mode. No firing and repairing.
  13. Then either chase him, block his route, or demast him. As it stands, the current repair option isn't something that gives a second life anyway. It's a small repair. I don't see how a second repair would force people to back each other up more or less than they already do. Repairs are minimal and would fall under a cooldown anyway. What you'd have, though, is the possibility for someone who managed to escape from harm's way to maybe re-enter the fight as a damaged, but still effective fighter. Yall are acting like a second repair (or any repair) means a new life or a new fu
  14. Fairly straightforward. Right now, we have one ship repair, one sail repair and one "urgent repair" (eight minutes CD). My proposal would be to bring back an extra ship repair. It's already not particularly easy to demast someone, but major encounters would definitely be improved upon if one had at least an extra set of repairs (or if repairs worked the same way urgent repairs work, no limit, but with a CD of 8-10 minutes). It'd certainly make PvE fights a bit easier, but would add a bit more strategy to group fights. As it is, someone who gets too damaged (but no leaks/major problems)
  15. I liked "Society" from Pirates of the Burning Sea. Sounded right for the time. I'd suggest Company. Fleets and Squadrons seem very militaristic in nature. Companies did a bit of everything, even though their main focus was obviously commerce.
×
×
  • Create New...