Trading post encapsulation was a throw back to the original new world, where pvp was every where and posts weren’t associated directly with player owned territories. However the current implementation doesn’t make sense, especially since only a few settlements are actually profitable.
Yeah there needs to be a change but linking markets isnt going to save outer regions. The additional income wont be as high as many people expect.
1 Like
I love how people think their own opinion deserver a brand new topic instead of posting on the alrady 92034203498 ones available.
I don’t think there’s a snowball’s chance in hell that most players would ever ask for convenience to be removed no matter what it does to the economy or players actively moving resources to where the demand is as a business model.
I got to that point much earlier in the conversation, and just decided my day(s) would be better if I simply didn’t see posts from someone with that attitude any longer. I think my decision was a good one. 
1 Like
“Hmm, I wonder what constructive discourse has been posted in this thread about this subject.” reads over replies Ohhhh
1 Like
That’s the problem…nothing fits together anymore because the original vision of the game has already been compromised and now we’re getting these half-assed responses to try and address the underlying issue of an ill-conceived, incoherent game.
They need to go back to the white board and put the point of the game in the middle in a big box and then brainstorm ways to achieve it.
Not sure how you’re concluding I’m deluding myself about being successful in a game mechanic that I think has no place being in the game…other than you being a troll.
2 Likes
Interesting read here:
Its very convenient for most of the players to have trading posts link so this is a good ideea
This is probably the most popular argument for this change. I don’t think this is why they a thinking of doing it, but it’s a very popular reason. This argument is totally fair and legit.
Only thing I would like to say in response to this is that this game is chalked full of inconveniences. Heaps of them. For me, the difference between a good or bad game design concerning inconveniences is if they tell a story or lead to the creation of stories.
For crafters, sellers and traders, local economies is exactly that kind of inconvenience that creates depth. But for buyers the only story they see is that the town they are in doesn’t have what they need. Or maybe that a story about a trader that brought something to the town they need, but the price pisses them off. Whether or not that is of value is up to you (obviously)
1 Like
Not only they should go ahead in linking the trading posts but you folks are way off base when it comes to the reasons you’re opposed.
This game’s economy is NOT localised, it’s centralised and it couldn’t be any other way as long as fast travel is a thing.
Globalization WILL NOT lead to deflation due to the supply/demand chain remaining untouched, it will however increase market volumes due to the decrease in costs for sellers and buyers alike.
The increase in competition caused by the global trading post will not be vast since anyone that hopes to sell in volumes already fast travels to the main hubs to put their stuff on sale where people will actually (also fast travel and) buy it.
Remote markets won’t see an immediate increase in trading taxed BUT they will become MUCH more feasible for house owners therefore inevitably increasing their economic value over time.
Crafting will slowly move from EF and WW to any other city where the owner company invested in facilities.
This will shift the economical landscape from a centralised one to a globalised one, heavily and inevitably moving wealth away from the center areas to spread it more evenly and FAIRLY, rewarding towns that offer the best services with the lower taxes instead of just shoving massive wealth in Everfall’s owner’s pockets.
You’ve been very active in this thread BlackXIV, and your point on the market effect of linked auction houses and it’s relationship to fast travel has been well explained.
I don’t agree with all your points on the perceived ease of getting Azoth, though it’s totally relevant, but I do agree with you in your general challenging of people who are potentially overconfident in their predictions of market price doom.
There are three main arguments I’ve seen against linking:
- Traveling trader play style is effectively removed
- Doom and gloom about market prices
- The change will not achieve it’s intent; equal player population.
#1 is totally subjective. #2 should be approached with humility and I think many of your replies may be aimed at people who are overconfident about their predictions of gloom.
But I’m not sure I’ve seen your opinion on #3. What do you think? I’m not asking if you think it will make these towns easier to live in. I grant that it will. I’m curious if you think it will cause people to move around until town populations are roughly equal. I’m very dubious it will.
My main belief on this particular point is that it will enable towns to attract residents.
A company owning Mourningdale for example will have the possibility to invest in crafting stations (even just a few specialised ones) and compete for the second house slot with any other town.
I personally am waiting on the change to buy my third house, if the change is stopped I’m going to have to buy it in EF, if it doesn’t I wont.
On a sidenote, I don’t have this topic particularly at heart myself. I found myself becoming vocal about it because of how vocal is the opposing party and how pointless and baseless (imho) is their argument. Feels a lot like arguing with no-vax or 5g doomsayers.
@VampSG Global storage would not make low level zones less populated. In fact, it’ll probably make people stay in cities longer! Having a universal storage would mean that you’re not forced out of a city because of the lack of storage provided by a city. Most people leave there city because they simply cannot fit everything in there storage so they have to weave there way to another low level town and leave behind some quests that haven’t been done. Also, wouldn’t it be nice to just open one huge inventory instead of having to go to multiple towns just to select one item that you may have left behind or need from another city? Greatly beneficial.
Not only your premise is false but your whole comment contraddicts itself EVERYWHERE.
? How lol .
Wouldn’t it be convenient to:
- have an npc who will buy everything you don’t want
- be able to open the map, click on a spot, and insta-teleport for zero charge to that location
- turn mats you don’t need into mats you do need
- replace a perk in gear you don’t want to one you do; and change it again a few days later when you decide you want the original perk back
- just start at level 60, WS 20, and refine/gather/craft 200 for everthing
- why not just remove all character customisation and force everyone through the same progression
The point of inconveniences like the above is to give challenge, which brings a sense of satisfaction. If all inconviences were removed, the game wouldn’t be fun. Even choices, like in my last example, are also an inconvenience for some; but choices make games interesting.
Local markets for trade may be inconvenient for some, but it makes trade interesting and brings substantial satifisfaction to the many people who play the trading game.
New World wanted to have a diverse and interesting market. They chose specifically to leave out npc vendors and to have markets unlinked. These choices are a huge reason for why I was excited to continue playing in alpha, then beta, and then live.
Linking markets is a signficant change that will greatly reduce the gameplay and options for trading.
1 Like
I’m just telling him how universal storage would incline more people to stay in the city they’re at because of no storage space.
Sorry, my bad you were talking about global storage but I thought you meant global trading.
Nah lol. Glad you read that again haha.