Settlement Management - The Ugly

[Archon]

Bids are problematic for settlements. Some time ago Myon had one shop sitting in prime spot of the high hall empty for about a month when following happened:

Someone bid, didn't check in. That is a week of empty shop. 80h bid cycle starts, this repeats x3. Lesser examples of this keep happening.

What would help.

Shorter automated timers.

If person who wins a shop doesn't check in in few days, shop releases for bid. Bid timer could also be shorter, like two RL days. People who actively look to own a shop, and want to stock it, will be keeping eye on these. One off characters or characters who just bid because it is so easy while passing by would not crank up whole rotation by being absent.

As well, if shop doesn't do any sales for x time (something like 2 weeks rl), it could be released by settlement leader (and/or empowered persons), opening up a menu option to do it. This gives a chance to clean up mostly unused shops that are used as storage, or help with characters who do it, but cannot be found and tracked down.

Right now DM intervention is needed, and this would be one step to make it unnecessary in some cases. With the shops activity is not so much measured when you click it, but what actively happens with it.

[Arienette]

Regarding the matter of Citizenship, Proof of Citizenship, etc.

There are weird and awkward omissions of the Bid system out there that need to be addressed, and has been flagged to the Team from my side, at least.

Now, I say for the most part because I do think there should be some modicum of control for Cities, because they have a vested interest in shops doing well. Bad Shops = Bad Economy = Struggle to pay employees/whatever. So a sub-section of shops in each City could be considered "Essentials" for the economy contributions so City administrations have some say in who gets at least parts of the shops, to ensure it goes to people willing to put in the effort as well while also leaving ample amounts of shops for everyone who just wants to yeet some +1 Disc +1 Parry +1 Con belt in there. Have at it lads.

There is a particular area in a particular settlement where the shops are omitted from the bid system. Not sure if this is intentional or not; it was brought up to DMs months ago and nothing has changed as far as I know.

This happens to be the area with the highest concentration of excellent and always-full shops on the server. Also, each shop is contributed to by 3 or more active participants in the settlement.

This is not a coincidence. It is a direct result of the shops NOT being in the bid system.

It would be great if all settlements had this ability. The "main shops" in the main trading hall/area of each settlement being exempt from the bid system, and under increased settlement control would be awesome! Really like your suggestion here.

[magistrasa]

This is not a coincidence. It is a direct result of the shops NOT being in the bid system.

I'm failing to follow your logic from point A to point B. Can I ask for a better explanation as to why you believe this is the case? Please account for the fact that I'm the dumbest person in this thread when you communicate your thoughts.

[Vyrandil Rivorndir]

This is not a coincidence. It is a direct result of the shops NOT being in the bid system.

I'm failing to follow your logic from point A to point B. Can I ask for a better explanation as to why you believe this is the case? Please account for the fact that I'm the dumbest person in this thread when you communicate your thoughts.

Could be misunderstood the way it is set up, but what Arienette means is that because the Settlement has the ability to decide who gets said shops - then they can ensure it goes to active people who stock shops with excellent wares/consistency rather than Random Dungeon Junk Diver #201. Hence it's not a coincidence that they are well maintained, it's explicitly done because they have the power to revoke the shops in-Settlement and allocate them to people they know will do so - as they're off the bidding system.

Edit:

TLDR; Power to give a shop to actually active shop tenders means shop is well maintained.

Regarding the matter of Citizenship, Proof of Citizenship, etc.

There are weird and awkward omissions of the Bid system out there that need to be addressed, and has been flagged to the Team from my side, at least.

Now, I say for the most part because I do think there should be some modicum of control for Cities, because they have a vested interest in shops doing well. Bad Shops = Bad Economy = Struggle to pay employees/whatever. So a sub-section of shops in each City could be considered "Essentials" for the economy contributions so City administrations have some say in who gets at least parts of the shops, to ensure it goes to people willing to put in the effort as well while also leaving ample amounts of shops for everyone who just wants to yeet some +1 Disc +1 Parry +1 Con belt in there. Have at it lads.

There is a particular area in a particular settlement where the shops are omitted from the bid system. Not sure if this is intentional or not; it was brought up to DMs months ago and nothing has changed as far as I know.

This happens to be the area with the highest concentration of excellent and always-full shops on the server. Also, each shop is contributed to by 3 or more active participants in the settlement.

This is not a coincidence. It is a direct result of the shops NOT being in the bid system.

It would be great if all settlements had this ability. The "main shops" in the main trading hall/area of each settlement being exempt from the bid system, and under increased settlement control would be awesome! Really like your suggestion here.

This was largely what I covered in my notice to them as well. Only coming from a Surface reference, doing Cordor Mercantile, Guldorand Indoor Market, Bendir Burrowhome -or- the Upstairs in the Inn as well as Myon High Hall (Spelling?) to be like the Brog Main Hall would be good.

[Arienette]

Yep, basically exactly what Vyrandil said.

Say you are the trade minister of Town A. In your main Trade Hall area, you have 4 shops, which ARE ON the bidding system. Two of them are very bad, and contribute nothing to the settlement economy. You provide suggestions to the shop owners on how to improve; they do not improve. You suggest they get one or more partners to help stock the shop better; they refuse.

In this scenario, you could evict them. But, because the shops are on the bidding system, its JUST as likely the character who wins the lottery will be just as bad for the economy as the last one. Or maybe they will never even come and claim the shop, and it will go to bid again, etc.

If instead, those four shops in the main Trade Hall area were NOT on the bidding system, in the above scenario you could evict the bad shop owner and ensure that the local shopless merchant guild gets it. Now instead of a random stranger from another settlement owing the shop and stocking it with 5 basic loot items, it is now run by 2-5 local characters who stock it full of items that contribute to the settlement economy.

[ElvenEdibles]

Just because we dont want to turn this thread into public shaming of people (including ourselves, because all of the server was guilty of this pretty much. It was how shops are) doesnt make it a convenient strawman argument. You may not accept it and you may not like it but it was the reality with shops for many many years.

So essentially the source/evidence is "trust me bro"?

Thats why its a convenient strawman.

[Hrothgar Bloodaxe]

It's interesting to see the perspective of settlement leaders w/ regard to managing poorly run shops - as a "merchant RPer" I have noticed a marked increase in poorly run stores, and had wondered why the settlements were not doing a better job of policing this.

I can't speak to the broader issues w/ governance here, but this ties in with my recent post on the issues with shop bidding/purchasing mechanics - perhaps it's possible to kill two birds with one stone, here!

My thought was to significantly increase the bidding amount / shop cost. It's not completely foolproof, but people would think twice if it cost them 100k+ (or whatever the best amount is, I just threw out a number) each time they wanted to bid on a shop.

viewtopic.php?f=37&t=39282

[Xerah]

had wondered why the settlements were not doing a better job of policing this.

Honestly, it's not worth it.

Why?

Because people get really attached to their shops. They will use OOC methods to contact you and attack you if you even suggest that you're going to do an audit of the shops. They will also ICly slander you for being a Tyrant. What if you're a good character?

I don't want to risk my RP goals to police people selling jewelry boxes for 10k (because who knows what kind of "voting block" is behind that person), so it's much better to focus your gameplay time/goals elsewhere.

[Hrothgar Bloodaxe]

had wondered why the settlements were not doing a better job of policing this.

Honestly, it's not worth it.

Why?

Because people get really attached to their shops. They will use OOC methods to contact you and attack you if you even suggest that you're going to do an audit of the shops. They will also ICly slander you for being a Tyrant. What if you're a good character?

I don't want to risk my RP goals to police people selling jewelry boxes for 10k (because who knows what kind of "voting block" is behind that person), so it's much better to focus your gameplay time/goals elsewhere.

Makes perfect sense - I figured there was *a* reason...because as others have stated, settlements have a direct financial interest in having good shops around; just wasn't sure what the particulars are. I appreciate the insight/perspective.

I think your comment speaks to the need to have a mechanical solution here, similar to the "increased bidding" I've suggested. Basically, have a way to require more "skin in the game" from potential shop owners on the front-end, or have some sort of mechanism on the backend to more efficiently remove underperforming shops without a significant and time-consuming burden falling on the settlement leaders.

I can imagine several possible solutions, not sure which is the "right" one, but I think there seems to be a decent consensus that the current mechanics are promoting poorly run / unaccountable shops, to the detriment of the community as a whole.

[AstralUniverse]

Just because we dont want to turn this thread into public shaming of people (including ourselves, because all of the server was guilty of this pretty much. It was how shops are) doesnt make it a convenient strawman argument. You may not accept it and you may not like it but it was the reality with shops for many many years.

So essentially the source/evidence is "trust me bro"?

Thats why its a convenient strawman.

A lot of people in this thread are saying that they've personally seen entrenched behavior around shops and that should be a sufficient evidence without having to actually name players... but you know what? Forget the players. The admin team was the one who added this lottery system directly to address this issue. Still strawman??

I'll just echo something from above because I think it's pretty spot on.

"Need" is putting it strongly, but I would definitely argue that it was a key component to the typical transition. If you wanted a shop, your options were to either get really, really lucky, or have friends willing to hand theirs over. Shop owners usually had a lot of friends to choose from, and so they would usually choose their inheritors based on ooc rapport. Anyone who did anything otherwise was a rare exception. The core difference to the system now is that you don't need to be really, really lucky - just a normal amount of lucky. I do think I prefer this as a general premise.

[Arienette]

had wondered why the settlements were not doing a better job of policing this.

Honestly, it's not worth it.

Why?

Because people get really attached to their shops. They will use OOC methods to contact you and attack you if you even suggest that you're going to do an audit of the shops. They will also ICly slander you for being a Tyrant. What if you're a good character?

I don't want to risk my RP goals to police people selling jewelry boxes for 10k (because who knows what kind of "voting block" is behind that person), so it's much better to focus your gameplay time/goals elsewhere.

Makes perfect sense - I figured there was *a* reason...because as others have stated, settlements have a direct financial interest in having good shops around; just wasn't sure what the particulars are. I appreciate the insight/perspective.

I think your comment speaks to the need to have a mechanical solution here, similar to the "increased bidding" I've suggested. Basically, have a way to require more "skin in the game" from potential shop owners on the front-end, or have some sort of mechanism on the backend to more efficiently remove underperforming shops without a significant and time-consuming burden falling on the settlement leaders.

I can imagine several possible solutions, not sure which is the "right" one, but I think there seems to be a decent consensus that the current mechanics are promoting poorly run / unaccountable shops, to the detriment of the community as a whole.

Shops are generally more actively managed in non-human settlements, IMO. This is for 2 reasons.

1. Racial settlements tend to have a less adversarial relationship between government and voters, more consensus-based.

2. Racial settlements tend to have a tiny number of shops compared to the nominally human cities of Cordor and Guldorand. Cordor in particular has a laughably huge number of shops. A short time ago, I realized a single guild hall tucked away in a back corner of Cordor has almost as many shops as Bendir Dale does in total. When the settlement has something like 50 shops inside it, the settlement can be a bit more cavalier about how much tax revenue they are producing. Bendir, Brog, and Myon each have something like ~10 shops total.

[ElvenEdibles]

Just because we dont want to turn this thread into public shaming of people (including ourselves, because all of the server was guilty of this pretty much. It was how shops are) doesnt make it a convenient strawman argument. You may not accept it and you may not like it but it was the reality with shops for many
A lot of people in this thread are saying that they've personally seen entrenched behavior around shops and that should be a sufficient evidence without having to actually name players... but you know what? Forget the players. The admin team was the one who added this lottery system directly to address this issue. Still strawman??

1) Anecdotes are not evidence
2) admins are capable of reacting to strawman too

Its very easy for something like this to happen:
1) someone complains on forums they can't get a shop because of hypothetical shop cabal
2) people who generally don't bother networking or putting in the ic effort to get a shop see post and assume shop cabals are why they can't get a shop
3) lots of people start complaining about hypothetical shop cabals despite no hard evidence of their existence
4) admins either believe the hype or want to quell complaining so they make a policy change that on the surface seems more fair but actually is a net negative


This has mad "scrygank squad" energy.

[Xerah]

I don't know why you're so obsessed with denying this happens. This 100% happens(ed), coming from someone who played here for a long time and has been on the dev team. We've literally discussed how to deal with this.

This specific topic can be dropped.

[msheeler]

Has it happened, yes I am sure it has happened. What I questioned, which started that, was - is this the true majority of cases?

As someone who played a merchant for almost 2 years, has owned shops in three settlements, and also worked as a a treasurer for quite some time, this was not at all a behavior I observed on a regular basis.

What I did see was some pretty good RP behind trying to buy out leases from current owners, work deals to use portions of shops and lastly groups of people coming together to form mercantile alliances.

But that is just what I saw.

[Arienette]

Has it happened, yes I am sure it has happened. What I questioned, which started that, was - is this the true majority of cases?

As someone who played a merchant for almost 2 years, has owned shops in three settlements, and also worked as a a treasurer for quite some time, this was not at all a behavior I observed on a regular basis.

What I did see was some pretty good RP behind trying to buy out leases from current owners, work deals to use portions of shops and lastly groups of people coming together to form mercantile alliances.

But that is just what I saw.

I 100 percent agree with this.