Trader's Canyon

[NotBambi]

Prices change very often in grocery stores.  Some people just buy what they need at that moment without taking the price much into account, and some people specifically buy when it's on sale, waiting for that sale before buying.

 

As long as the really high ticket items (golds, silvers, prizes, etc) weren't too heavily effected by the fluctuation (unless something got really out of wack), I don't see a problem with the prices changing based on over/under population.  It just makes sense to price something that the ratios want less of more so fewer people will buy it, and to price something the ratios want more of less to encourage people to buy it.

I can understand where you're coming from but... until few days ago, CB Almandines and Spessartines were quite high tickets, right now we've no idea what they are so here you go... something out of wack even without trying.

IMHO, unless there's a change from ratios to rarity, that concept in the store will be an epic fail.

 

Side note: I would not compare grocery stores with DC stores. Grocery stores belong to the "necessary" realm, DC does not. Very different dynamics.

Edited April 1, 2016 by NotBambi

[Thuban]

Side note: I would not compare grocery stores with DC stores. Grocery stores belong to the "necessary" realm, DC does not. Very different dynamics.

Well.. its kind of similar really.

 

When something affects the amount of milk that is able to leave the farms and be delivered to the store, the price of milk goes up. When things go really well, milk goes back down again. I personally refuse to pay more than $1.99 a gallon unless I absolutely have to, and my store tends to drop it that low at least one week a month.

 

If the wild dragons aren't producing a specific breed (because they have become more rare for whatever reason), then there are less to go around, and it makes perfect sense that their value would raise. If a breed is producing so many that there just aren't enough homes and resources for them (due to going more common) well, the price is going to drop. They are easy to find, and anyone can get them, so of course they would be "cheaper".

 

The trader, even without gold or money is still going to follow economy rules. Having too many of something isnt always a good thing. If they cant trade them (due to too many), it would make sense to make the eggs cheaper to get rid of them and make room for things they can trade for more shards. Shards are useful to the trader, or he wouldnt be trading eggs for them.

[NotBambi]

Well.. its kind of similar really.

No. It is not. I volunteer with people that barely survive on food stamps. That "similarity" is offensive.

Edited April 1, 2016 by NotBambi

[Pokemonfan13]

I specifically meant the "really out of wack" thing to mean the ratios of the true ultra-rares, the ones I listed (mostly added the etc in case there were any that belonged with them, or for future ultra-rare releases). That they wouldn't move much unless something really bad was going on (like it turns out the store price was too low and people buying them from the store really messed up the ratios). Given that it's rather unlikely that the Almandines and Spessartines were ever actually intended to equate to golds and silvers, they would fall into the category of the (possibly) highly fluctuating prices. They'd be under the same category as a user-made rare, like how CB blacks were once really worth something in trading.

 

It's not a completely comparable situation, true. But it's not like it's completely NOT comparable either. If nothing else, it's just there to say that a store can function with variable pricing, sometimes very widely variable pricing. (buy one get two free situations and such)

 

Although with the truly underpopulated super commons, it would probably be better to have the store "pay" users to raise them (the equivalent of putting an item on clearance). Since they're sitting around in the cave without enough people who want to raise them, it would make sense for the ratios for the store to literally pay people to take them away. (with the dragons unabandonable; as well as ideally unkillable and unreleasable for the time it takes them to stop counting for the ratios for obvious reasons)

 

 

I agree that the store would be a lot simpler if we switched over to a simple rarity system. But since designing the store around that when it isn't what we have isn't very practical in terms of actually getting the store in-cave, it's kinda necessary to have at least one store design that actually works with the ratios, rather than ignoring them. If we had a store with fixed prices, ignoring the ratios, the dragons in the store would be "cheap" in comparison to the trading market specifically when the ratios don't want as many to be produced, so the store would actually be working against the ratios and making them more unstable by making it harder for them to self-correct.

 

Edit: Our real world food situation is tragic, but I don't understand what it has to do with this?

Edited April 1, 2016 by Pokemonfan13

[NotBambi]

I specifically meant the "really out of wack" thing to mean the ratios of the true ultra-rares, the ones I listed (mostly added the etc in case there were any that belonged with them, or for future ultra-rare releases).  That they wouldn't move much unless something really bad was going on (like it turns out the store price was too low and people buying them from the store really messed up the ratios).  Given that it's rather unlikely that the Almandines and Spessartines were ever actually intended to equate to golds and silvers, they would fall into the category of the (possibly) highly fluctuating prices.

Bold is mine. Do you know that for sure? Because what TJ said was"pyralspites are indeed dropping more commonly than golds". Did he say anything about Silvers, etc? Do you have any "insider" information?

 

Edit: Our real world food situation is tragic, but I don't understand what it has to do with this?

I've no idea. I was not the one bringing up grocery stores, you did.

Edited April 1, 2016 by NotBambi

[Thuban]

No. It is not. I volunteer with people that barely survive on food stamps. That "similarity" is offensive.

And we make just enough money to not qualify for help, but not enough to really survive. I watch those sales just as closely, and take extra steps to provide for us but that cushion isnt always enough. The fact that its food wasn't the point. The milk example was just the simplest one on my mind to explain. The same can be said about /any/ service.

 

 

Lets try a different example: For the time frame this game takes place in, it is safe to assume there is a blacksmith. If the blacksmith needs iron, but there isnt any iron mines in the area, then any iron available is going to cost more. If there is a mine near by, and its got a lot of iron, then the cost of it would go down. Especially when you consider those local miners are going to need tools made...

 

(then read the bit i said about dragons in the above comment)

[Pokemonfan13]

I was just saying that based on the situation (and especially the fact that they seem to be more common now) that them being so rare was most likely a fluke rather than what was actually intended...

 

And I brought up grocery stores because they're an example of fluctuating prices, not because they sell food! I could have brought up something else, but a lot of other stores follow a different model. Like clothing stores are constantly changing their product lines to match the fashion, so they're more "sell it for as much as the market will bare, then discount it if it doesn't sell to make space for the next round of clothes". Grocery stores were the first thing I could think of that has variable prices on the exact same goods over time.

Edited April 1, 2016 by Pokemonfan13

[NotBambi]

And we make just enough money to not qualify for help, but not enough to really survive. I watch those sales just as closely, and take extra steps to provide for us but that cushion isnt always enough. The fact that its food wasn't the point. The milk example was just the simplest one on my mind to explain. The same can be said about /any/ service.

 

 

Lets try a different example: For the time frame this game takes place in, it is safe to assume there is a blacksmith. If the blacksmith needs iron, but there isnt any iron mines in the area, then any iron available is going to cost more. If there is a mine near by, and its got a lot of iron, then the cost of it would go down. Especially when you consider those local miners are going to need tools made...

 

(then read the bit i said about dragons in the above comment)

Probably I'm hyper-sensitive but after spending days trying to help people that can't afford bare necessities like food, I've a hard time sympathizing with "Internet needs".

 

Let's try the example you referenced. Yep, makes sense BUT ratios will not help because they"float". Replace "ratios" with "rarity" - and I'm not talking about user-induced rarity. Now you have a reference system. And I'm on board with that.

 

[Thuban]

Probably I'm hyper-sensitive but after spending days trying to help people that can't afford bare necessities like food, I've a hard time sympathizing with "Internet needs".

 

Let's try the example you referenced. Yep, makes sense BUT ratios will not help because they"float". Replace "ratios" with "rarity" - and I'm not talking about user-induced rarity. Now you have a reference system. And I'm on board with that.

To be fair.. my original comment was only about fluctuating prices. The store reference had been brought up and was on my mind when I decided to respond, and is an example that has been used several times in this thread. It was a logical place to go with the example i was providing.

 

Regardless of why the prices fluctuate... rarity or ratio.. the logic behind the prices still stands. And.. just as a note: assigning specific prices by rarity is something that quite a few people are dead set against. It will change perceived economy by assigning specific values to things.

[cyradis4]

Probably I'm hyper-sensitive but after spending days trying to help people that can't afford bare necessities like food, I've a hard time sympathizing with "Internet needs".

 

Let's try the example you referenced. Yep, makes sense BUT ratios will not help because they"float". Replace "ratios" with "rarity" - and I'm not talking about user-induced rarity. Now you have a reference system. And I'm on board with that.

Not wading into this right now, but let me tell you this:

 

Based on what I know of my own coding endeavors and what I've worked out must be going on with DC's ratios (from things TJ has said in the past and I've experienced and what he's said of his own coding things), it would be simplicity itself for the prices to fluctuate based on the ratios. The exact equation in use might be a bit more complex to work out, but all you actually need is an adder or subtractor to the price that changes with how far "over" or "under" their ratios a species is.

 

From all I've seen, the ratios have two parts to them: an "ideal" ratio, and a + / - % showing how far from ideal they are. So the prices for these dragons would work the same way: there'd be a "neutral" price, the price the dragon would be if its ratios were perfect, then that price would go up or down based on how "over" or "under" populated the breed is.

 

For those who say, "but that sets values", well.... The value was already set when the dragon was released, and the + / - was how the user-base felt about that value. So both sides get to put in their two-cents on the value topic.

 

Cheers!

C4.

[~!~]

Suggestion: What if you could sell eggs to the store as well as buy them?

[DTi56]

Huh. A pretty good idea. Kinda like Tale of Dragons, which unfortunately shut down.

Maybe some exclusive dragons could be added.

EDIT: What if a custom code dragon was more expensive than the original dragon requested? Would seem cool.

Edited April 3, 2016 by DanielDragonist

[NotBambi]

Suggestion: What if you could sell eggs to the store as well as buy them?

I would like that.

[Fiona]

My only hesitation on selling eggs to the store is, what happens to those eggs then? The most likely to be sold are the blockers, right? And we need those to count towards the ratios.

 

That's my issue with the idea of "trade X super commons for a nice uncommon" idea too. We need to have more of the super commons on scrolls, not less.

[NotBambi]

My only hesitation on selling eggs to the store is, what happens to those eggs then? The most likely to be sold are the blockers, right? And we need those to count towards the ratios.

Depends... on how low is the "assigned price" of the cave blockers. Close to null?

Personally I would happily "sell" eggs to the store, maybe with the assumption that, if nobody asks for them, they grow on my scroll. Let's assume there's a "store inventory". My "commission" comes due only when the store sells my eggs.

Additional edit: I hate the ratios system and I can't stand all the limitations they add to (or subtract from) the game.

Edited April 4, 2016 by NotBambi

[Thuban]

The first post of this thread is in the process of a major overhaul. Its going to be a little bit, but its being worked on as quickly as possible. I think it will answer a LOT of questions.

 

 

 

Maybe some exclusive dragons could be added.

EDIT: What if a custom code dragon was more expensive than the original dragon requested? Would seem cool.

 

Exclusive, Store only dragons got a lot of hate all throughout this thread. While I personally am not against the idea, its something I wont be specifically adding back to the thread. I will leave it completely up to TJ and artists to decide if/when/how they want to deal with it.

 

As for custom codes: I am fairly certain it could be a part of the store, if we go ahead and allow mini raffles to play along. Again, its something that wont necessarily be in the first post as its a "T.J.'s gotta figure that out" thing.

 

 

Suggestion: What if you could sell eggs to the store as well as buy them?

Its not a horrible idea, but.. I need to finish getting the first post fixed up and updated with all of the information so far, before I can really approach this one. At the moment, there isnt any real reason for it to be a thing. Gimmie a little bit though, and we can come back to this, ok?

Edited April 4, 2016 by Thuban

[cyradis4]

*pokes first post*

 

It is a lot of info presented differently, isn't it? Let the games begin!

 

Who can start poking holes in it first.....

 

Cheers!

C4.

[mo7]

If it does ever need an edit, feel free to PM me and I'll get to it

 

Also, I noticed the price for CB holidays. In my opinion it seems a bit low, especially for older ones. Perhaps it could increase by how many years have passed since they were released?

 

Also I like the Trader's Canyon theme.

Edited April 4, 2016 by mo7

[xeyla]

I was ok with the store idea when it first showed up. I had my doubts about it working out, though.

Now, with this new/updated idea, I like it more.

I have to read every point in the updated OP, but so far I don't see any downsides. I like the fact that any player can participate and earn the shards.

[Eos]

I like the name! I also think the prices outlined for dragons not found in-cave are reasonable.

[NotBambi]

Ehm... I used to like the idea. But, reading the new first post, it is becoming a bit too complex for my taste.

[Thuban]

Ehm... I used to like the idea. But, reading the new first post, it is becoming a bit too complex for my taste.

It is all of the exact same information. The only difference is that now all of the information is spelled out in detail, instead of only being known to those who have been following closely.

 

The only differences specifically are: Numbers were added for examples, and multiple traders were added to serve specific purposes.

 

This thread is past the point where a simple first post will work. Its been fleshed out quite a bit now, and all of that information is important to have out in the open, especially if its something that has a chance.

[HeatherMarie]

Wow. You've really taken the time to flesh this out. While I don't really *care* one way or another about a store, I think it could be kind of interesting.

[Fuzzbucket]

That's complicated, but still. As long as (my brain hurts !) grinding is not required, I THINK I am OK with this. Though I still think shards should be permanently untradeable. Otherwise you will need a sink.

Edited April 4, 2016 by fuzzbucket

[Thuban]

That's complicated, but still. As long as (my brain hurts !) grinding is not required, I THINK I am OK with this. Though I still think shards should be permanently untradeable. Otherwise you will need a sink.

They are untradable. If there is a need for it down the road, then that may be reconsidered, but not until a year or so at the minimum. Its going to take time for everything to stabilize (but im right there with you in the "don't want it tradable" crowd).

 

 

Im sorry your brain hurts, but everything that is there was discussed