Ryzom

rushin wrote: Ithink you need to experience the high end market a little before making such sweeping statements. i regularly put weapons up with 6000% markup and they sell, because they are worth the dapper

As Rushin says, capping the markup has been suggested before, and dismissed, for several reasons. Proposed also in other contexts (to stop using the merchants as storage -- not saying it's bad, I do it myself regularly--) but it's complicated. What markup is "too high"? hard to tell. A supreme item is worth a lot.

rushin wrote:you mean the markup?

i think you need to experience the high end market a little before making such sweeping statements. i regularly put weapons up with 6000% markup and they sell, because they are worth the dapper

(if you didnt mean the markup then please ignore me, or explain )

I mean the markup. And, in the next line, I say:

In the other hand, Items percent don't need be capped, because they are not stored as much as the mats.

So, of course, you can put a item at 6000%. That's the whole point.

I've been seen the traders for several months. All of them, from lower in Yrk, FH, Pyr, Zora up to hightest in Dyron, Natae, etc..

I'm a bit freak of economy in games, you know, so this is a point I've been giving large thoughs. The idea is:

Capping to seven days the merchants is a *bad* idea with the little population (In other games are in two days and it works, but no here), so the idea is doesn't allow markup of mats more than 500-1000% or so, but alloe fulll markup of items, whitch is wath moves the economy. You can put a 6000% in a weapon; if noone buys it, you will low it. So that system works. And the weapons aren't stored in traders.

Other solution for the use of traders as storage is that every 10 mats count as one in your 127 items limit. That will cut storage, but will cut mat trade as well, so no good.

In the other hand, give more storage and remove the 7 days limit could be a solution.

iphdrunk wrote:Proposed also in other contexts (to stop using the merchants as storage -- not saying it's bad, I do it myself regularly--) but it's complicated.

it's silly that "hawker as free mat transport" and "merchants as free storage" widely used known _exploits_ still exist.

how many devs does it take to code non refundable merchant fee based final markup price ?

Guild Hall seasonal maint fee
Apt seasonal maint fee
OP season maint fees
OP drill maint fees
Guild storage expansion purchasewith a seasonal maint fee (each expansion of GH storage increases cost expontentially).

The more OP's/drills your guild owns the greater the maint fee grows/item (grows in some expontential fashion). There is currently no deturrent to owning one OP let alone 9 OP's.

I am opposed to the idea of items in storage deteriorating. I have many 'keepsakes' from players who have left.. and are thus irreplaceable, and there will be more now
Also, my online time has become irregular, it would be stupid to dig/hunt stuff that degrades before I get to use it.

Give us new stuff to buy... black marketeers selling hacked factional TPs, mercenary guards from regional tribes, RP props, maybe even putting on a festival in a city with your guild logo all over the place..

rental fees for more storage space is a good idea, so long as it just locks you away from the contents when you are in arrears and doesnt destroy it. Otherwise it is going to punish people who spend time on their alts, or go on holidays or lose their net connection... or cannot play for whatever reason.

praha wrote: There is currently no deturrent to owning one OP let alone 9 OP's.

actually, the limited storage is the deterrent against owning multiple OPs.. you can only use so many cats..