Talk:Contracts
I don't see why it shouldn't be possible to not fulfill a contract and cheat other people. I think this restricts gameplay. That goes along the lines of why it shouldn't be possible for highwaymen/couriers to steal packages? What's the kick in running a courier service when you can't be robbed anyway? I think creating a courier service with a good reputation should be rewarded. That only makes sense if there is a way to not have a good reputation because other people or employees keep stealing from the customers.
KaiBlin 09:31, 11 March 2006 (CET)
As you said so rightly in the Organization talk page, it's game-dependent. ;) But it's a good point. Multiple courier services in competition could be interesting. And of course then the reliability/reputation is an important factor.
--Jae 11:27, 11 March 2006 (CET)
By making contracts as non-cheatable as possible, we create trust between the parties. Trust enables more forms of trade, e.g. investment and player run postal services. When there is the possibility for a courier or robbers to steal a postal package for example, that will surely happen, which means that people would not want to send anything of any value through a postal service, which means that there would be less demand for one, and perhaps it wouldn't be created at all. Same applies to other features, like banking (storing money), investment, etc.
Courier services can still compete with reliability (actually bringing the packages to the destination), time to deliver, volume, and price.
It's like in an anarcy you only get some gangs, that do primitive trade at most. While in a country with free trade and enforced laws in place, you get a lot of different bussinesses, offering a lot of different services. So what I want to do is to lift multiplayer worlds from primitive anarchy to lawfullness and freedom! =)
--zzorn 12:57, 11 March 2006 (CET)
One possible design: have a "post office", and official (NPC-driven) postal system. And player-run courier services (free market anyone? ;). The postal service being not really expensive, but still a bit pricey (depending on "level" of player perhaps? How to reason this in the game world is left as an exercise for the reader ;) ) At least as pricey as to make player-run services "profitable". So, a player could decide to pay a bit more, but be sure of delivery. Or pay a bit less, but having to risk loss or theft.
--Jae 14:40, 11 March 2006 (CET)
