Buyback

Rusty · Post by **Rusty** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 6:21 pm

Currently 20% +-5%, per NWN1, where standardisation came in after any attempt to control loot supply.

I can't think of any immediately obvious reasons not to change to 50% +-5% for NWN2, assuming that we have control of loot supply.

Can anyone else?

Wynna · Post by **Wynna** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 6:49 pm

I'd like to go with 50% across the board. It's simple and it gives some reward for loot, which we're controlling from the get-go.

Brokenbone · Post by **Brokenbone** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 6:57 pm

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/wea ... ellingloot

50% supportable in PnP, though in PnP, DMs probably do not decide to leave gems and +3 weapons and other loot sitting in random barrels of rainwater, or abandoned crates, piles of rocks, or things like that.

As long as ALFA's game is "careful" on distribution, though also careful on things like reasonable places for buyback / gold limits (i.e., bartenders not having unlimited funds and a desire to purchase 40 kobold shortswords at a go), this sounds like a perfectly fair idea.

If confidence isn't there though, for well set up loot supply and disposal via merchants, I guess you'd nudge that 50% downward.

Mayhem · Post by **Mayhem** » Sat May 24, 2008 9:21 am

Sounds fair, if loot supplies can be controlled.

1) Make sure they are equipped with gear suitable for their "industrial base" - rank and file primitive humanoids should have cheap, easily made weapons (clubs, spears, axes, wooden shields, leather armour).

2) Enemies with valuable weapons - through looting or whatever - need to drop them when killed - if you are going to hit players with orcs in perfectly functioning chainmail weilding greatswords it is only fair (pending survival) that they can pick up this valuable loot afterwards - if they can carry it!

3) There is a case for making monsters not drop gear in order to reduce lag from uncollected crappy gear. IF we decide to limit loot drops by saying "their weapons are too crappy to be worth selling" I think it only fair that we apply negative penalties to the monsters when they are using them. If the weapons are good enough to hit people with without penalty, they are good enough to sell.

Kest · Post by **Kest** » Sat May 24, 2008 10:12 am

Brokenbone wrote:(i.e., bartenders not having unlimited funds and a desire to purchase 40 kobold shortswords at a go), this sounds like a perfectly fair idea.

Is it possible to set up things like a smith that will buyback weapons and armor but not other item types? Alchemist that accepts reagents and potions?

And you could have fences that accept anything of value, etc.

Creslyn · Post by **Creslyn** » Sat May 24, 2008 12:00 pm

Already done. Most of the stores on TSM only buy/sell certain types of items already.

Dorn · Post by **Dorn** » Sat May 24, 2008 2:19 pm

Why not have a look at some PCs on TSM and determine if justified?

If everyones spot on then good. If people are over....maybe keep as it is.

Remember that most armour taken off a dead body is hacked, slashed, burnt, lightninged, bloodstained etc. Esp if off an orc/goblin or some feral race who prob dont take skill points in craft/care for armour or craft/carefor weapon.

Mayhem · Post by **Mayhem** » Sat May 24, 2008 2:59 pm

One spear-thrust though a chainmail shirt is pretty easy to fix - especially when compared to making a suit from scratch!

Of course, the HP system makes it a bit awkward, as people survive a dozen or more spear-thrusts, but I'd argue the ones that were not enough to kill you probably didn't do much to your armour, either.

JaydeMoon · Post by **JaydeMoon** » Sat May 24, 2008 6:18 pm

No, they sure would be damaged and second rate/used goods.

Hence the 50% buy back.

Veilan · Post by **Veilan** » Tue May 27, 2008 8:27 am

Actually, from a mercantile standpoint, the sharp drop in value of items is not from being used / damaged, but because you, as a private vendor, lack the infrastructure, capital, time and other ressources to find the appropriate buyer that would pay the premium "market value". See it as an exchange rate fee from "money" (universal, useful to anyone) to "item" (special, useful only to those in need of said item).

Shopkeeps buy from you because they have all that infrastructure, and make a profit within the difference from what they can get in time. Severely damaged gear in states of disrepair will fetch drastically lower than 50% (though I'm fairly sure that is reflected item-side).

Post by **paazin** » Tue May 27, 2008 10:47 am

Veilan wrote:Actually, from a mercantile standpoint, the sharp drop in value of items is not from being used / damaged, but because you, as a private vendor, lack the infrastructure, capital, time and other ressources to find the appropriate buyer that would pay the premium "market value". See it as an exchange rate fee from "money" (universal, useful to anyone) to "item" (special, useful only to those in need of said item).

Shopkeeps buy from you because they have all that infrastructure, and make a profit within the difference from what they can get in time. Severely damaged gear in states of disrepair will fetch drastically lower than 50% (though I'm fairly sure that is reflected item-side).

Not to mention it also fosters a small market between adventurers. I'm sure PC B would much rather purchase a +1 sword from PC A for 700 gold than from the store for 1300 gold.

However, if we're intending to use jewels and precious stones as currency, the 100% buyback rate wouldn't work. Losing 50% of your value in each transaction makes it entirely not feasible. Though as we don't have gold weight in, it's not as much of an issue right now.

Mayhem · Post by **Mayhem** » Tue May 27, 2008 3:45 pm

Can shops monitor their stock, and include it in buyback equations?

If we set a nominal stock level of, say, 50 items, then the buyback rate can be (50-current stock of that item) %

So, when you come to sell a longsword to a merchant who currently has none is stock, you'd get 50% value. (assuming the merchant is interested in buying swords)

If he has 10 longswords in stock, he would only offer (50-10=)40% value.

If everyone has been to the orc-caves today and come back with a half dozen long swords, and he now has 40 in stock, he will only offer (50-40=) 10% value.

We could tweak the actual figures - nominal stock of 25, 2% each for example.

Magonushi · Post by **Magonushi** » Tue May 27, 2008 4:26 pm

That might be a bit of a load on the DB if it is constantly logging and running calculations with that info for every shop every time someone buys or sells an item on a server.

Also Paazin brings up the gem question again. Would it be possible to make gem shops an exception to the 50% rule and instead buy gems at around 90-100% of value and sell at 100-110% of value based on appraise rolls? This would allow the gem market to act like a sort of second currency, which I believe is what we wanted it to serve as.

Mayhem · Post by **Mayhem** » Tue May 27, 2008 4:34 pm

Appraise should not be used in shops to change prices - it should only give you an idea of what the item you have found is worth, so that you know if you are getting ripped off or not.

Haggling should probably be covered by Diplomacy.

Veilan · Post by **Veilan** » Tue May 27, 2008 11:38 pm

I'm not entirely fond of the idea of store capacities. While in theory they are there to stop people from farming and selling the same rusty short swords over and over to Bob the Baker, their actual effect is just to reward those that sell him his capacity of rusty short swords first.

Limiting stores is again mostly a detriment to casual players, and supply side control is immensely preferable.