New Continent, Seperate Storage?

[sparhawk]

just put of curiosity where will the entrance/ship/teleportal to the new contanant be?

[Wytter]

just put of curiosity where will the entrance/ship/teleportal to the new contanant be?

188232[/snapback]

We're not telling

[Learner]

just put of curiosity where will the entrance/ship/teleportal to the new contanant be?

188232[/snapback]

A new Fluffy spawn in Tarahaji that ignores MM

[Sistema]

just put of curiosity where will the entrance/ship/teleportal to the new contanant be?

188232[/snapback]

God, even I don't know yet

[emtor]

i'm still not certain about this one, but i think i'd go with them being all linked. the ones on seridia all know what happened with each other, the ones on irilion may as well be linked too

however, the idea about having the common basics (flowers, ores, etc that are on both continents) continent-only and the less common stuff being global is interesting... but i suspect that the coding required outweighs any benefits

if they are to be split, then I'd like the transfer idea (but instead of a tax, how about shipping delay? it takes an ingame day or three. much easier than calculating the tax on a sword, for example)

188196[/snapback]

 

 

I really like that idea of having a delay for the shipping

[Dimov]

Well, the storages can be separate, with an export option, which pleases every1. Perhaps, there can be a bank transaction instead of an export to please any1 whining about time (like me, my time is too precious to be spent on EL), that would take a certain time per item - 10% time past, 10% quantity transfered.

There may be even contraband goods - goods legal in wuteva-the-current-continents-name-was, but illegal in the new one wuteva it is.

[Brom]

The Idea gets a no from me. But just for fun I will bring this up. I do not like the idea myself

 

A Negative perk! I cant belive you guys have not thought of this in all of your negative-perk love. (I say we do away with negative perks ;P) But. A negative perk that does not transfer over your storage for say. 6PP gain?

 

Overall I like the idea of having the same storage in the whole game.

[salun]

Okay then - as I don't know how big this new continent will be, how many ports to the "old world" there'll be, and so on, and so forth, I don't know how this idea would sound...

The new continent will have a number of storages solely used for that continent.

At the same time, in some of the ports to the "old world", there will be storages connected to the already existing ones(votd, dp and so on). The same would be added in the ports in the "old world" (portland??).

But as such there would only be, I don't know, 1, maybe 2, of these "other-continental storages" on each continent, and each of them would charge a fixed amount of gc (20-100) for each time you wish to enter your storage from the "wrong" continent(ie. the you aren't on).

This would also create a new money-sink - not a big one, but it'll be there.

 

How does this sound for an alternative?

[gadai]

I've stayed silent on this thread so far (no applause please ) up to this point but I have to say I like Mr Salun's idea very much - introduce the time delay for these 'import/export' storages

[Placid]

Addendum:

For those with a dislike of manual labour, there could be an export option added to the storage interface, to transfer goods between continents.  Such an option would incur a shipping charge (prices by weight), and/or a 1 game day delay to represent transport.

187974[/snapback]

I voted yes, because I think it adds dynamic to the game, and creates a challenge and thought behind playing. (things shouldn't be too easy!)

 

My decision was further swayed by the suggestion of an export between continents at a cost (this is a great money sink).

 

Please people, think of the bigger picture and the overall gameplay benefits before saying no

[Arnieman]

hmm, I'm thinking that, unless all the Irilion storages are stand-alone (or, delay between storages), it makes no sense to have the continent-separate storages from a storyline view. I mean, the Seridian storages are all instantaneously linked somehow (magic?), if Irilion were using a similar system for "linking", it wouldn't take long for the new Seridian explorers to fix the link between Irilion and Seridia, so that the storages would all interconnect.

[trollson]

... it makes no sense to have the continent-separate storages from a storyline view.  I mean, the Seridian storages are all instantaneously linked somehow (magic?), ...

 

 

The linked storages on Seridia are really a simplification for game purposes, and it hasn't been necessary to describe how they work behind the scenes.

 

For example: These stores could operate on a credit system; you withdraw from and deposite to a well stocked local warehouse at each site, your account details are kept in sync between the sites (man on a horse would do), and commodities are levelled out in slowtime. No need for magic, and it would not reliably scale to inter-continental distances.

 

My interest in this, in part, is to keep a degree of seperation between the economies of the continents, and hopefully make trade more important. Having the short-cut of global storage would undermine this.

[Nyxl]

I've noticed something funny.

 

None of the people defending the idea of separate storage have bothered countering the argument that not everyone has the time to spend hours managing their storage.

 

Come on ! I have a job that costs me 10-11 hours a day and when I get back from work and connect on EL (if I have the stamina for that), I want to enjoy myself, not spend the few minutes I have before falling asleep in tedious, boring and pointless activities... :shame:

 

I know it is a good idea, yes. I know this is more realistic, yes. But I don't like the idea anyway, I don't want to get fed up of a game I enjoyed more for the people I meet there than for the mechanisms or the accuracy of facts and feats. I already left for a few months when RL duties overwhelmed me. I rejoiced when I could get back here. I spent some hours discovering the changes from last time I was on, and enjoyed the new features that broke the monotony of some activities. This very idea adds nothing new, it adds awful lengths of time to casual activities...

 

Another reason I do not like this idea is that the coding skill and time involved for this could be better used on other tasks, such as giving impact to yet unused attributes (Perception and Charm, for instance, for which there were already made interesting suggestions, sic Roja)...

 

Again I say, this is a good idea. But not for a free mmorpg.

 

Edit :

 

Anyway, that's not us to decide.

Edited August 17, 2005 by Nyxl

[Placid]

Well thats what the export storage option would be for.

 

And whats so difficult about get 5 of you to walk/teleport between the storages?...It encourages teamplay.

 

And don't forget there will be resources on the new continent, so effectively you'll have twice the amount of resources at your fingertips ^_^

[BogusDude]

How about if the new island has a teleport room similar to the current one with an interlinking teleport to them both. Useful when exporting small quantities. The new teleport room would require new sigils else its a one way trip for those with current sigils.

 

I like the idea of the tax but think it should be a %age of the goods rather than a cash payment. Not sure if this is what you meant anyway.

 

Should encourage more teamwork with guild members working on different continents towards a single cause.

 

But i don't like the idea of walking from A-Z as being the only option. I don't care how hard you make it, I will thrive on the challenge, I don't see why people who spend the most time and put in the most effort shouldn't benefit more than part-timers. Why shouldn't they get something extra out of the game. I put plenty of hours into the game and theres always someone who puts in more or less (obviously), it doesn't make sense to set the standards based on casual players (bit of normal distribution required here). If you can do a taxable transfer with little effort then time really isn't an issue.

 

And i agree with Nyxl point on integrating the missing attributes Charm, Perception etc although this is a little unfair on high level players who need millions of exp for a single pp. But hey what goes around goes around.

 

Sorry i usually refrain from posting on this forum and stick to our own, but as its for the future of EL what the heck!!!

[Brom]

%age of the goods rather than a cash payment.

Ohh I like that idea, That would make people still carry things over that they do not want a precentage taken out of. such as weapons and armours you do not want to be taken. But for mass quantity's like my sunflowers and silver for LE. I will simply them them take their 10% or whatever

Edited August 17, 2005 by Brom

[Nardo Lala]

I also voted yes, as i think it will greatly improve the game, possible create more merchants. My suggestion is that the export option would not be possible at storage itself but at certain npc's at the harbours instead to relieve storages from crowding. Also i like the idea of the time delay and paying a percentage of goods instead of cash, maybe have both options so you can choose depending on your goods, even increase the price/percentage by the choice of unsured/insured transport against Mother Nathure, pirates and so on while at sea.

[Brom]

I also voted yes, as i think it will greatly improve the game, possible create more merchants. My suggestion is that the export option would not be possible at storage itself but at certain npc's at the harbours instead to relieve storages from crowding. Also i like the idea of the time delay and paying a percentage of goods instead of cash, maybe have both options so you can choose depending on your goods, even increase the price/percentage by the choice of unsured/insured transport against Mother Nathure, pirates and so on while at sea.

 

Im liking this more and more. So. If you allow me too, let me sum-up.

 

- (NPC)Exporting avaible in large ports, (Portland) for transportation of goods from storage across the continent to storage.

- Time delay before the goods arrive (1-2 game hours? Depending on which merchant you send it through?)

- Precentage of goods shiped to be taken by the merchants shipping your goods. (Optional for Cash, but cost less if they take goods)

- Insured and Unsured transport in case of Pirate attacks. (Pirates abound in great numbers on the sea)

 

 

Ummm, I like.

[trollson]

Some interesting feedback in the recent posts. I'll summarise and comment

 

Shipping delay:

• should be more than any travel time between continents if it is to make any difference. This minimum time is currently unknown.
  
• if ~1-2 hours then this should be online time ("express").
  
• if ~1 game day then this could be offline time.
  
• different delays for different levels of service?
  

Cost of export:

• Percentages round up or down? If down then characters with too much time on their hands could exploit the system. If up then you wouldn't want to ship your one Serpent Sword! Percentages work only with bulk goods.
  
• Cost per weight should always work. Either you can affort to ship, or you cannot.
  
• Charges proportional to the goods will not favor haves vs have-nots.
  
  

Misc:

• Export offices in port towns? Excellent idea. This means that the current storage NPC interface does not need to change, and gives a new NPC to interact with.
  
• You should only be able to 'Export', not 'Import'.
  
• Insurance would be complex to implement in modern terms (value of rare items?). The insurance instead could represent more heavily guarded and secure transport, reducing the potential percentage loss through pirates et al.
  

Possible shipping options:

1. Slow unguarded - 0 gc / emu, 1 day, 25% losses.
   
2. Slow guarded - 1 gc / 100 emu, 1 day, 10% losses.
   
3. Fast unguarded - 1 gc / 100 emu, 2 hours, 20% losses.
   
4. Fast guarded - 1 gc / 50 emu, 2 hours, 5% losses.
   
5. Magical Apprentice - 1 gc / 5 emu, instance, 25% losses.
   
6. Magical Master - 1 gc / emu, instance, 10% losses.
   

(All figures above are purely speculative!)

Edited August 20, 2005 by trollson

[Placid]

I personally think you should pay cash up-front, not a percentage of the goods. Doesn't make sense to me, as it'll become another system-hack where people will just harvest x+percentageLoss resources.

 

If you pay cash upfront, you have an invaluable money sink.

 

If cash payment is not used, perhaps you can pay 'insurance' in four levels that trollson suggested.

[Aislinn]

If a money sink is the goal now, there have been many suggestions made that offer things people want and are enjoyable and enhance the game playing experience for them. Why in the world wouldn't we look at those suggestions?

 

Sorry guys, but I fail to see how making something as necessary as storage difficult and time consuming and expensive is enhancing anybody's gameplay here.

[Daxon]

If a money sink is the goal now, there have been many suggestions made that offer things people want and are enjoyable and enhance the game playing experience for them.  Why in the world wouldn't we look at those suggestions? 

 

Sorry guys, but I fail to see how making something as necessary as storage difficult and time consuming and expensive is enhancing anybody's gameplay here.

188989[/snapback]

 

You can't have everything gameplay-enhancing all the time. You sometimes have to suffer the swapping of enjoyment for balance. Balancing this by adding a money sink on it is atleast a start.

[Arnieman]

Anyone else getting sick of the "money sink" philosophy?

 

We need less access to money, not forever need to exploit ways of earning it for the most basic of services. (just a sidenote, for all the "money sink" sicophants.)

[Placid]

Anyone else getting sick of the "money sink" philosophy?

 

We need less access to money, not forever need to exploit ways of earning it for the most basic of services.  (just a sidenote, for all the "money sink" sicophants.)

189024[/snapback]

That's one solution, yes. However, currently the only solution is to take money out of the economy.

 

This thread isn't for this discussion anyway.

[Aislinn]

That's one solution, yes. However, currently the only solution is to take money out of the economy.

 

This thread isn't for this discussion anyway.

189045[/snapback]

I disagree since a moneysink is one of the 2 reasons offered for this idea.

 

We have had better money sink ideas that give people things they actually want and would make them enjoy the game.

 

And still nobody has told me what this wonderful "challenge" is that I should be embracing...other than to not die of boredom and frustration.