Bargaining

[zanzibar]

Originally posted by SuburbanPlankton
A bargaining \"skill\" based solely on Charisma would make sense; \"good\" and \"evil\" don\'t need to enter int0 the equation in any way.  I only have one concern:

Charisma score is determined at character creation.  That\'s fine; Diaboli inherently have more charisma than Kran.  That makes perfect sense.  But there needs to be a mechanism whereby you can change your charisma score.  You might work very hard to become \"charming\" in order to overcome deficiencies in your outward appearance, or you might be naturally charismatic, but act like a real jerk to all you come in contact with.  There needs to be some way for the game to account for behavior and its effect on charisma.

Training cannot be the answer, or else everyone could just buy their way to a high charisma score.  We can\'t use a player-rating system, for reasons which have already been pointed out in this thread.  I can\'t come up with a way to do it unless we can give the AI an IQ boost of about a jillion percent.

Charisma measures your ability to win people over WHEN YOU WANT OR NEED TO.  Someone can act like a jerk most of the time, yet be able to charm people when he or she wants to.

Reputation among other players should be a NATURALISTIC THING.  There is NO need to turn it into a stat.

[SuburbanPlankton]

Originally posted by zanzibar
Charisma measures your ability to win people over WHEN YOU WANT OR NEED TO.  Someone can act like a jerk most of the time, yet be able to charm people when he or she wants to.

My problem is with the fact that charisma needs to be adjustable.  I will grant that all Diaboli are born with a great deal of charisma, and that no matter what their personality, they will always have the ability to make use of it.  But I don\'t agree that those born with low charisma are unable to increase it.  There needs, at the very least, to be a way to increase one\'s charisma.  The problem is that there seems to be no proper way to manage this within the game.

Reputation among other players should be a NATURALISTIC THING.  There is NO need to turn it into a stat.

I agree 100% on this.  Reputation should never be a stat, or a skill, or anything with any sort of number attaches.  It should be what it is: a general estimation of the way the community as a whole feels about the person.



I still see the best solution for this is to develop the player-based economy.  Then both reputation and charisma become a natural part of the interaction between players, and statistics need not come into play at all.  Perhaps NPC merchants could be restricted to only basic equipment.  That way, new characters who have not had time to develop a reputation will have a guaranteed source for necessary equipment, but more experienced players would be forced to interact if they wish to make use of any advanced equipment or skills.

Of course, all of this will take considerable time, but hopefully it will come to pass.

[Rage McCloud]

Yes because i knew nothing of Charisma when i made my KRAN character... so yes there should definately be a way to do this... possibly if someone needs \"help\" with something they click a button and when you right click them and it shows the eye and stuff it also shows an H and you click it and it pretty much makes them give you a quest... and if you succesfully \"help\" them then it may raise your cha... BUT then there is the fact that happens with reputation... abuse... the thing is that games can only go SO far in realism... because at a ceratin point mmorpg\'s will HAVE to depend on p2p actions... and then people with greed or lazyness will abuse these factors...

I still see the best solution for this is to develop the player-based economy. Then both reputation and charisma become a natural part of the interaction between players, and statistics need not come into play at all. Perhaps NPC merchants could be restricted to only basic equipment. That way, new characters who have not had time to develop a reputation will have a guaranteed source for necessary equipment, but more experienced players would be forced to interact if they wish to make use of any advanced equipment or skills.

I agree with this... but also as stated in that post... it would take time... but it would be extremely cool and realistic and fun because even if someone has a friend then if he sold the friend something cheap then the merchant would be the one on the lower side... so it would force people to keep it at reasonable amounts... and it would keep items and trias circulating... BUT if a whipe or something bad happened to criple the economy then it would be bad... i see terrorism coming into play there...

SuburbanPlankton i just realised who you were lol! im sorry for being a jerk when i was... i was having a bad day that time(s)...

[Bnm85]

Originally posted by SuburbanPlankton
My problem is with the fact that charisma needs to be adjustable.  I will grant that all Diaboli are born with a great deal of charisma, and that no matter what their personality, they will always have the ability to make use of it.  But I don\'t agree that those born with low charisma are unable to increase it.  There needs, at the very least, to be a way to increase one\'s charisma.  The problem is that there seems to be no proper way to manage this within the game.

Increase it to what point? To the same max as Diaboli? You can already increase a low CHA character by choosing appropriate options during character creation, and there don\'t seem to be any specific limits set for any race on CHA stat. Besides, why is it a problem that Diaboli will have the best charisma and bargaining bonuses? They already have a disadvantage of being vulnerable to blessed weapons and magical items, so it makes sense for them to have advantages elsewhere to balance that. Or if that is not a problem, then why is it a problem for Kran (since you used them as an example) to have a low CHA? Like I said, you can increase it during character creation. And if you don\'t like the fact that you have to sacrifice other skills, well, that\'s called balance.

Speaking of race balance, it still leaves a lot to be desired right now.

[Draklar]

Originally posted by zanzibar
You\'re wrong.  Merchants not selling to \"evil\" characters is:

- unrealistic
- impractical

Only merchants aiming for shady characters would sell their wares to shady characters. Being seen with \"evil\" people scares away potential customers. Unless I don\'t know, you\'d like to go to a shop where gangsters go, but that might be just you.
Unrealistic? Impractical?
Two vegetable-selling shops in a village. To one come rogues, to other they don\'t. Now let\'s think which will see more of the common folk :rolleyes:
But no, being additionally robbed in a shop is such a tempting idea...

Originally posted by zanzibar
You have a poor understanding of what neutrality means.  Think about the Kjeld guild from before the wipe -- a good example of a neutral guild.  They believed that the world requires a ballance between good and evil.  Too much good is a bad thing, and not enough evil in the world is also a problem.  That\'s what it truly means to be neutral.  A truely neutral warrior may even switch sides in the middle of a battle once one side starts winning.

What the... Let\'s say I\'m poor and my family is starving. In such case I would much rather meet a \"good\" person that will give me money to feed my family than to meet an \"evil\" person who will steal the rest of it.
Saying that isn\'t neutrality is nothing short of a joke. If I am to care about myself, then I\'d prefer people who are ready to help me than those who cause me harm.
Instead of telling me \"You have a poor understanding of what neutrality means.\", show me flaw in my logic.

[zanzibar]

Originally posted by SuburbanPlankton
My problem is with the fact that charisma needs to be adjustable.  I will grant that all Diaboli are born with a great deal of charisma, and that no matter what their personality, they will always have the ability to make use of it.  But I don\'t agree that those born with low charisma are unable to increase it.  There needs, at the very least, to be a way to increase one\'s charisma.  The problem is that there seems to be no proper way to manage this within the game.

You\'re wrong.  It is entirely possible to train Charisma.  My present character started with level 1 (one), and now has level 65.

Originally posted by SuburbanPlankton
Reputation among other players should be a NATURALISTIC THING.  There is NO need to turn it into a stat.

I agree 100% on this.  Reputation should never be a stat, or a skill, or anything with any sort of number attaches.  It should be what it is: a general estimation of the way the community as a whole feels about the person.[/QUOTE]


No no no.  As soon as you get a general estimation, it\'s still going to be based on some sort of numerical calculation.  By naturalistic, I mean your reputation is your reputation, not some statistic no matter how that statistic is expressed.  Said more simply, your reputation is how the other players feel about you, and nothing more.  It isn\'t a stat, it isn\'t recorded, it isn\'t attached to your character profile.

Originally posted by SuburbanPlankton
I still see the best solution for this is to develop the player-based economy.  Then both reputation and charisma become a natural part of the interaction between players, and statistics need not come into play at all.  Perhaps NPC merchants could be restricted to only basic equipment.  That way, new characters who have not had time to develop a reputation will have a guaranteed source for necessary equipment, but more experienced players would be forced to interact if they wish to make use of any advanced equipment or skills.

Of course, all of this will take considerable time, but hopefully it will come to pass.

NPCs, as of right now, only sell basic equipment.  When was the last time Harniquist sold gold falchions or fire longswords?

[zanzibar]

Originally posted by zanzibar
You have a poor understanding of what neutrality means.  Think about the Kjeld guild from before the wipe -- a good example of a neutral guild.  They believed that the world requires a ballance between good and evil.  Too much good is a bad thing, and not enough evil in the world is also a problem.  That\'s what it truly means to be neutral.  A truely neutral warrior may even switch sides in the middle of a battle once one side starts winning.

Originally posted by Draklar
What the... Let\'s say I\'m poor and my family is starving. In such case I would much rather meet a \"good\" person that will give me money to feed my family than to meet an \"evil\" person who will steal the rest of it.
Saying that isn\'t neutrality is nothing short of a joke. If I am to care about myself, then I\'d prefer people who are ready to help me than those who cause me harm.
Instead of telling me \"You have a poor understanding of what neutrality means.\", show me flaw in my logic.

Everyone wishes to have good things done to them.  Your allignment is related to what you do to others.  There is the flaw in your logic.

[Draklar]

Alignments are a moral/ethic system. Morals and ethics isn\'t what you do unto others... It is what your world views are (Like chaotic-neutral bard might be no different than a neutral peasant, when it comes to behaving towards others). Sorry, try again.

[Draklar]

Everyone wishes to have good things done to them.

Said that you still don\'t think neutral people would prefer to hang out with \"good\" ones over the \"Bad\" ones?
Wow...

Edit: crap, wrong button :\\

[zanzibar]

Originally posted by Draklar
Alignments are a moral/ethic system. Morals and ethics isn\'t what you do unto others... It is what your world views are (Like chaotic-neutral bard might be no different than a neutral peasant, when it comes to behaving towards others). Sorry, try again.

I\'m not sure if your post is serious or not....


You\'re saying that a neutral family will still want good things to happen to them.  However, that would supposedly be true for a good family or evil family as well.  The important question is:  What would those familes to unto others in a given situation?

And your actions are directly related to your \"world view\", so I\'m still not sure if you\'re being serious or what.

Originally posted by Draklar

Everyone wishes to have good things done to them.

Said that you still don\'t think neutral people would prefer to hang out with \"good\" ones over the \"Bad\" ones?
Wow...

Edit: crap, wrong button :\\

I think that allignment in a D&D sense goes beyond who you would want to hang out with.  This isn\'t myspace or livejournal or whatever you crazy kids are up to these days.  In fact, good characters might want to hang out with evil characters, and evil characters might want to hang out with good characters.  They\'re still who they are.

The problem is, people can\'t be put into simple categories like that.  The D&D system works, but I think that Planeshift might have the potential to go beyond that.  Even further, popularity says nothing about whether you\'re good or evil.  There are surely popular people who are evil and unpopular people who are good.

[hereticalfaction]

How about a CHA-only based bargaining skill plus a factorto represent the affinity between merchant alignment and charachter alignment?

Affinity could be as follows (using D&D style alignments):

-All merchants are lawful (they kinda have to be)

For all merchants:
Lawful charachters get -10% to cost (they are certain to pay whats due)

Neutral charachters get no bonus

chaotic charachters pay +10%

Good Merchants:
Good charachters no bonus

neutral charachters pay +5%

evil charachters pay +15%

neutral merchants: no bonuses at all

Evil merchants (think poison dealer or fence):
Good charachters pay +25% (evil buisness is inherintly more risky)

Neutral charachters pay +15%

evil charachters no bonus

[zanzibar]

Not all businessmen are lawful. :p

[Draklar]

Oh for crying out loud, I\'m tired of this...

Taken from Wikipedia:
Neutral

\"Undecided\"

A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn\'t feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or order vs. chaos. She thinks of good as better than evil - after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she\'s not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way.

I\'m done...

[zanzibar]

Originally posted by Draklar
Oh for crying out loud, I\'m tired of this...

Taken from Wikipedia:
Neutral

\"Undecided\"

A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn\'t feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or order vs. chaos. She thinks of good as better than evil - after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she\'s not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way.

I\'m done...

I disagree with that definition because it doesn\'t reflect the \"neutral\" as expressed by kjeld worshippers or the other definitions I\'ve given which are much broader than simple being \"undecided\".

Being neutral does not necessarily mean you are undecided.  Just look at Eastern philosophies which say thatgood and evil must exist in the world side by side in order for there to be ballance.  Even Christiandom believes that evil must exist in the world in order for the good in the world to be meaningful.  If you take this to an extreme, and you start to take ballance and greyness as the goal, then you end up with a kind of neutral allignment which is not reflected, covered, or addressed by labelling neutral as \"undecided\".  Really, if you say that neutral simply means \"undecided\" then what you\'re actually saying is that neutral doesn\'t exist.  Well, I\'m sorry but there\'s more to it than just that.

[Antranianni]

Originally posted by hereticalfaction
How about a CHA-only based bargaining skill plus a factorto represent the affinity between merchant alignment and charachter alignment?

8o

Please, no!

This system SOUNDS quite nice and well considert, yet try to think what this would mean ingame... you\'ld have to stick with a chosen alignment forever, because making the alignment changeable would totaly break this system.
(\"Let\'s see... to get the best price with this smith I\'ll have to set my alignment to lawful stupid...\" )