Suggestion for a barter change to make it more usable.

Allow characters to barter for more than one item.
e.g. barter (item) for ('item 10')

>Suggestion for a barter change to make it more usable.
>
>Allow characters to barter for more than one item.
>e.g. barter (item) for ('item 10')

The merchants are pretty happy with the deal they get now.

The thing is if Ive gotten it right a more rp-perspective. Sort of silly to purchase a potion worth 500 for a gem worht 10000.... running about looking for a gem that is worth say 5 times the value of the item your wanting is sort of silly. When is this was enabled it was for the rp value in the game I hope... Makes the bartering less valuable in that sence I think. Especially for some of the playerbase that would perhaps be more dependant on this..?....
cough cough...

As even a merchant as greedy as they might be, would not all flay you, take most of your gold aye... but they would want you to come back and trade with them.... would be little sence in ripping their customer off... little trade grows that way. Grant them a fair deal, at a price ofcourse, but ripping them off.... I just dont see it working that way. Even in times past.

LH

Sort of silly to purchase a potion worth 500 for a gem worht 10000.... running about looking for a gem that is worth say 5 times the value of the item your wanting is sort of silly.

The inflation gets bad if you're offering the shopkeeper something they don't particularly want. If you're trying to pay for a pie with a dagger, it's going to have to be a darn good dagger, because otherwise the baker is just going to think "I don't want a dagger. I could sure use some cash to pay the rent, though." If you don't believe me, go to your corner store and try to buy things with baseball cards, your wristwatch, etc.

Cash is always preferable to goods, though. This is both realistic, and healthy from a game-balance perspective.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

in the old days there where many means of exchange, gems food bread water gold coppers silvers, one could go on...

However as you said not all would be interested in that really nice dagger, though they would purchase it, but an insane loss for the seller whom most likely would be desperate.

But as far as coins and gems they where set as equal. The past often reflects todays society, even now gems are a good way to trade. I could go into the south african trade, but I dont think it would prove much... *boggle*...

Coins have taken over in the newer days because its easy handling and smaller units. Gems where in the end used mostly for bigger transactions.

My point comes to that make gems a secondary unit of exchange to complement the outlanders/barter. It would not be any outofplace thing to do, nor would it upset anything. And make it at a say twice the price thing. As well as implementing the ammount thing. I cant see the great problem in coding this ither. Not that Im a great coder... Just a bit idealistic. And I like the thing that barter actually has become more usefull in the game as the times its played in would be appropirate.

One could even go as far as villages would be more willing to accept "gems" as currency as they are not that influenced so of the bigger cities. But that Id guess would be an insane job to work out.

Thanks for the imputs.. Just had to rebuttle...

sence does not come in bags, though it can strike as lightning from a clear sky.

LH

>The inflation gets bad if you're offering the shopkeeper
>something they don't particularly want. If you're trying to
>pay for a pie with a dagger, it's going to have to be a darn
>good dagger, because otherwise the baker is just going to
>think "I don't want a dagger. I could sure use some cash to
>pay the rent, though." If you don't believe me, go to your
>corner store and try to buy things with baseball cards, your
>wristwatch, etc.
>
>Cash is always preferable to goods, though. This is both
>realistic, and healthy from a game-balance perspective.
>


OK. That part, I get. What I'm not sure I get from your post or Sev's is why, assuming arguendo that it is a _really good_ dagger worth two pies, you can't barter it for 2 pies at the same time, rather than just one pie. My post wasn't to suggest that bartered items should be valued more, it was to suggest that it makes sense to be able to barter for a greater quantity than one, assuming the item you're bartering with is worth a greater quantity than one.