Trader Realism

[Bruno Willis]

I love the new trader houses. They seem well defended and well thought out, as well as very very cozy.

What remains is an issue that I've felt since I first started playing: frequency of traders. Why are there so many, when I'm the only person they can trade with? Where do they get their food from? Did they grow up wanting to live alone and isolated, and then leave their parents and go out into the wild and just wait? For who? Me? 

Obviously, they're this frequent so that they can be found, but it feels quite odd. I think there are two parts to the solution for this, and both would be cool in their own right. It may be very unrealistic, but I thought I might as well throw it out there and see what sticks.

1. Traders know each other: Each trader would know the location of a nearby trader with a different trade to them. If asked about other people like them, a trader would say "do you have any... (X very specific food)" If you brought it to them, they'd tell you that you should offer it to (name of nearest trader), as "it's their favorite food." They would mark the location of the new trader on your map. If you know the favorite food of a trader and bring them some when you visit, they give you slight discounts. That way, it becomes a method to find new traders, or a way to learn the favorite food of a trader you already know about.
2. Half of the current trader generation locations are replaced with empty camp-sites. It might be built in a ruin, or be an empty, old camp-fire and a hidden stack of aged firewood, or any number of things. The camp sites would ideally be claimed, but still allow players to use the firewood and firepits (if possible?). During the spring, summer and autumn, there is a good chance a traveling group will generate in one of the camp sites. Once they've generated in, they move to the next closest camp sight or trader each day, tracking in a general direction until they've traveled maybe 6 stops, before disappearing (they'd only actually appear if the player generated the spot they're supposed to be in). Hopefully that would simulate them traveling across the map, without any need to have them actually walk. There would be a whole lot of different traveling groups, but each would have a commander/elder/spokesperson who would offer limited trades for food, a specific want, or the location of a distant trader, and a small group of unfriendly (not speaking much) companions.

 

Groups:

Most travelers would be stone-age nomads. Their elder would pay 1 gear for full, sealed crocks, and 2 gears for any metal object, of any metal variety. (not a good deal, but they're poor). The elders would share the locations of traders freely.

Other less likely travelers:

• Refugees. Their spokesperson would pay 1 gear for any cooked food, any sort (an excellent deal, they're starving). and 2 gears for any metal weapon. They would share the location of a distant trader for 3 gears. They'd accept donations. If you could tell them the location of a certain hospitable story location, they would give you a piece of "precious" jewelry, like a crown or neckless, in thanks.  
• Bronze-age nomads. Their elder would offer a bronze knife for 2 pies of any sort, and sell furs for gears. They would share the location of a distant trader for free if the player made a trade with them. 
• Soldiers. Their commander would pay 2 gears for 64 grain (sad soldier rations). They would ask about the locations of any traders or story locations, and pay 2 gears per location given up. The soldiers would keep their spears leveled at the player, even during negotiations. If spoken to, they'd all say variations of "You're ordered to speak with the commander, then leave."
• Bandits. similarly aggressive body language as with the soldiers. Their commander would have obviously questionable dialogue, and would pay 3 gears for any food type, but not actually pay when the trade button was pressed, just take your offering. Would offer jewelry and ruins loot for gears. Would offer to pay 6 gears per location of traders or story location given up, but would ultimately not give away the gears. If the player made more than 3 transactions with them (remembering they rarely give what they say they'll give) then they'd just let the player go. Otherwise, after leaving the conversation, the bandits would attack the player. 

[ifoz]

46 minutes ago, Bruno Willis said:

Bandits. similarly aggressive body language as with the soldiers. Their commander would have obviously questionable dialogue, and would pay 3 gears for any food type, but not actually pay when the trade button was pressed, just take your offering. Would offer jewelry and ruins loot for gears. Would offer to pay 6 gears per location of traders or story location given up, but would ultimately not give away the gears. If the player made more than 3 transactions with them (remembering they rarely give what they say they'll give) then they'd just let the player go. Otherwise, after leaving the conversation, the bandits would attack the player. 

I like the suggestion of bandits not necessarily being aggressive on sight as opposed to a lot of other bandit suggestions people have put up, but I still don't know if they should be outright aggressive at all. Most humans in the game have at least heard of Seraphs before, and when travelling your main safety is in your numbers. I don't think it would be wise for a small group of bandits to go picking a fight with a tall, immortal being who can repeatedly come back after death until they finally kill all of you. 

Some of the new trader sets get names internally, and one that stood out to me was 'shady'. The dark cloak has this name, while there are matching pieces that don't get the 'shady' name but share the same design style. Put together, it looks like something a thief or scavenger would wear. I think this would be more fitting for a 'bandit' type group - kind of shifty, suspicious travellers who deal in interesting goods but never quite say where they got them from. Some of them would also clearly be goods that have come from other traders - trader clothing, sealed croks of food, etc. They'd probably also be eager to pawn off whatever trader goods they might have, so it can't be traced back to them by any angry trader who wonders where the embroidered shirt he hung outside to dry has vanished to. You'd probably also get regarded with suspicion, unless you were a Malefactor, in which case they might have better deals and treat you with a bit of comradery. 'Honour among thieves' and all that. Maybe offering a free small meal if you were actively starving to death, or a free bandage if you were very low on HP.

Bandits should also have a much higher chance to generate wearing any of the trader masks, since they'd probably not want their identity to be known.

------------

Unrelated to the above section, but I wish the trading system was overhauled to be less restrictive. These people are struggling to survive out there (well, most of them are) but they're incredibly picky with goods. "I wanted a brown leather reinforced shield, not a green one. I won't buy that!"
I think some items should just have categories instead of set definitions. Eg; a trader might buy any shield, but the price depends on the quality. Crude shield is worth the least, wooden shields would be worth more, then leather-reinforced shields, metal-plated shields and finally the tailor's ornate shields valued the highest.
Same for things like falxes - if a trader is wanting to trade for a weapon, why should they care if it's bismuth or tin bronze. You should be able to sell whichever you want, and then the amount they give you for it depends on type.

I also think clothing traders specifically could have a "request clothing" option like a real tailor would. They'd still have weekly rotating stock, but you could also pay extra for them to make a specific item of trader clothing for you that they aren't selling that week. It'd take the entire week to make, but would guarantee you got that item the week after.
They could also potentially repair your clothes for some gears, for players who don't have linen to spare in winter or don't know that non-tailors can repair clothing too.

Edited yesterday at 01:01 AM by ifoz

[LadyWYT]

I like it, and it feels a little more realistic than what we have now. That being said, I would say that something like this relies quite heavily on establishing some sort of trade route system.

23 minutes ago, Bruno Willis said:

Traders know each other: Each trader would know the location of a nearby trader with a different trade to them. If asked about other people like them, a trader would say "do you have any... (X very specific food)" If you brought it to them, they'd tell you that you should offer it to (name of nearest trader), as "it's their favorite food." They would mark the location of the new trader on your map. If you know the favorite food of a trader and bring them some when you visit, they give you slight discounts. That way, it becomes a method to find new traders, or a way to learn the favorite food of a trader you already know about.

This could be limited to traders that are part of the same trade route, as it doesn't otherwise make sense that Jim-bob the survival guy knows Morty the farming guy, who lives practically on the other side of the world. I'm not saying that it's entirely impossible that could happen, just that it makes more sense for traders to have a more localized network.

I would also make the bribe something other than food. Currently, traders are quite happy to point you to the location of the nearest treasure hunter for a small fee, so it seems more likely that if the player is willing to fork over a few gears or has otherwise done a few trades with the trader in question, they would see that player as a valued customer and happily point them to their trading comrades in order to get more business. Food they already have, so unless it's something quite exotic(which the player probably isn't going to have) I don't know that they'd be very impressed.

29 minutes ago, Bruno Willis said:

Most travelers would be stone-age nomads.

Actually, I disagree. Not that stone-age nomads don't exist in the world, but the world of VS is also a pretty brutal place. Given that the minimum equipment level of traders seems to be basic bronze weaponry, I would say that the average traveler ought to at least have copper/bronze equipment. It doesn't necessarily have to be armor, but they're gonna need some quality tools and weapons to survive very long in the wilderness, what with monsters and bandits sculking about.

 

32 minutes ago, Bruno Willis said:

Soldiers. Their commander would pay 2 gears for 64 grain (sad soldier rations). They would ask about the locations of any traders or story locations, and pay 2 gears per location given up. The soldiers would keep their spears leveled at the player, even during negotiations. If spoken to, they'd all say variations of "You're ordered to speak with the commander, then leave."

Most soldiers would probably be escorting other travelers, or defending settlements. There could be scouting parties that are searching for bandits or something, but I'm not sure that there's any settlements big enough to field troops like that. I would also expect them to be at least somewhat friendly to the player, especially in light of what @ifoz noted about general NPC sentiments about seraphs.

 

35 minutes ago, Bruno Willis said:

Bandits. similarly aggressive body language as with the soldiers. Their commander would have obviously questionable dialogue, and would pay 3 gears for any food type, but not actually pay when the trade button was pressed, just take your offering. Would offer jewelry and ruins loot for gears. Would offer to pay 6 gears per location of traders or story location given up, but would ultimately not give away the gears. If the player made more than 3 transactions with them (remembering they rarely give what they say they'll give) then they'd just let the player go. Otherwise, after leaving the conversation, the bandits would attack the player. 

I think it ought to be the other way around, for the most part. Bandits aren't good people, and a lone traveler is a prime target. Whether or not they decide to try their luck with a seraph, I'm not sure, but I think if the seraph wasn't well-equipped and/or there's several bandits, they're likely going to try to rob the player. At that point, the player can either offer them enough stuff to satisfy the bandits and make them back off, or they can find themselves fighting for their lives. One alternate scenario I could see though--the player could perhaps sell out traders or otherwise aid the bandits somehow in order to become friendly with bandits...at the cost of being despised by other NPCs. If the player already has a bad reputation(maybe they attacked and looted trader outposts themselves) then bandits might be inclined to be very friendly when dealing with said player, unless the player has crossed them as well. 

 

10 minutes ago, ifoz said:

I don't think it would be wise for a small group of bandits to go picking a fight with a tall, immortal being who can repeatedly come back after death until they finally kill all of you. 

It's not wise, but no one ever said bandits were smart. Of course, they're not necessarily dumb either, or they wouldn't be surviving as bandits in the wilderness of Vintage Story. I could see them trying their luck with a seraph anyway if there was good loot to be had, with the idea being that they'll be long gone before the seraph can return to life and figure out where they went.

 

12 minutes ago, ifoz said:

Some of the new trader sets get names internally, and one that stood out to me was 'shady'. The dark cloak has this name, while there are matching pieces that don't get the 'shady' name but share the same design style. Put together, it looks like something a thief or scavenger would wear. I think this would be more fitting for a 'bandit' type group - kind of shifty, suspicious travellers who deal in interesting goods but never quite say where they got them from. Some of them would also clearly be goods that have come from other traders - trader clothing, sealed croks of food, etc. You'd probably also get regarded with suspicion, unless you were a Malefactor, in which case they might have better deals and treat you with a bit of comradery. 'Honour among thieves' and all that.

Shady traders are something I'd definitely like to see. The first trader the player meets(or at least, is likely to meet) should probably be friendly, but otherwise having a shadier individual or two would definitely make them more interesting, especially since picking certain dialogue yields a "Ha! Bold of you to assume I'm friendly!" as a response.

I think shady traders could also tie in with bandits, in that perhaps the "trader" isn't a trader at all, but a bandit in disguise running a front for his gang's operations. In that case, travelers who don't seem worth the trouble can simply be sent on their way and be none the wiser, while others could be ripped off, or set up for ambushes for easy loot.

[ifoz]

3 minutes ago, LadyWYT said:

One alternate scenario I could see though--the player could perhaps sell out traders or otherwise aid the bandits somehow in order to become friendly with bandits...at the cost of being despised by other NPCs. If the player already has a bad reputation(maybe they attacked and looted trader outposts themselves) then bandits might be inclined to be very friendly when dealing with said player, unless the player has crossed them as well. 

I like the idea of the player being able to get on friendly terms with bandits, it'd add more dynamic to the world.
I imagine it'd be something like the travelling grave robbers you can meet in KCD. In that game, one of the campsite encounters is a suspicious peddler who has clearly gotten his goods from robbing nearby battlefields and/or graves. He'll try and judge whether or not you'd be the type of person to rat him out, telling you his goods might not be acquired in the traditional sense. If you say you don't care about that, he'll offer to trade with you and become significantly friendlier.

I imagine if the player had already stolen from other traders (if that was to be added) or was playing as a Malefactor, the disposition of bandits would start higher than usual.

[Bruno Willis]

14 minutes ago, LadyWYT said:

I think it ought to be the other way around, for the most part. Bandits aren't good people, and a lone traveler is a prime target. Whether or not they decide to try their luck with a seraph, I'm not sure, but I think if the seraph wasn't well-equipped and/or there's several bandits, they're likely going to try to rob the player. At that point, the player can either offer them enough stuff to satisfy the bandits and make them back off, or they can find themselves fighting for their lives. One alternate scenario I could see though--the player could perhaps sell out traders or otherwise aid the bandits somehow in order to become friendly with bandits...at the cost of being despised by other NPCs. If the player already has a bad reputation(maybe they attacked and looted trader outposts themselves) then bandits might be inclined to be very friendly when dealing with said player, unless the player has crossed them as well. 

Just because they don't say they're robbing you, doesn't mean they're not robbing you. Imagine giving them some food, expecting the clink of gears in return, but you get none, and the commander just does that laughter animation. What do you do? exit the conversation and fight them? They attack you if you havnen't given them enough. If you keep buying from them, and they keep not giving you anything, they're essentially robbing you anyway, and don't need to resort to violence. 

34 minutes ago, ifoz said:

I like the suggestion of bandits not necessarily being aggressive on sight as opposed to a lot of other bandit suggestions people have put up, but I still don't know if they should be outright aggressive at all. Most humans in the game have at least heard of Seraphs before, and when travelling your main safety is in your numbers. I don't think it would be wise for a small group of bandits to go picking a fight with a tall, immortal being who can repeatedly come back after death until they finally kill all of you. 

Some of the new trader sets get names internally, and one that stood out to me was 'shady'. The dark cloak has this name, while there are matching pieces that don't get the 'shady' name but share the same design style. Put together, it looks like something a thief or scavenger would wear. I think this would be more fitting for a 'bandit' type group - kind of shifty, suspicious travellers who deal in interesting goods but never quite say where they got them from. Some of them would also clearly be goods that have come from other traders - trader clothing, sealed croks of food, etc. They'd probably also be eager to pawn off whatever trader goods they might have, so it can't be traced back to them by any angry trader who wonders where the embroidered shirt he hung outside to dry has vanished to. You'd probably also get regarded with suspicion, unless you were a Malefactor, in which case they might have better deals and treat you with a bit of comradery. 'Honour among thieves' and all that. Maybe offering a free small meal if you were actively starving to death, or a free bandage if you were very low on HP.

Bandits should also have a much higher chance to generate wearing any of the trader masks, since they'd probably not want their identity to be known.

I really like this read of bandits. I think they'd be a much higher threat to traders than a seraph, although I imagine they might want to find your house and rob it, but I think that would be too far for a game like this one. 

18 minutes ago, LadyWYT said:

Most soldiers would probably be escorting other travelers, or defending settlements. There could be scouting parties that are searching for bandits or something, but I'm not sure that there's any settlements big enough to field troops like that. I would also expect them to be at least somewhat friendly to the player, especially in light of what @ifoz noted about general NPC sentiments about seraphs.

Yeah, I was imagining how concerned I'd be meeting a well armed, small squad of soldiers asking about any settlements in the area. I'm not telling them! I imagine them as a looting party for some large and aggressive society far far away, but it would make more sense if they were just well armed, traveling traders. 

[LadyWYT]

9 minutes ago, Bruno Willis said:

Imagine giving them some food, expecting the clink of gears in return

One problem: sharing food, as in sharing a meal, tends to be a way to show that one is friendly to a fellow traveler, so it doesn't really make sense to expect anything in return. 

 

11 minutes ago, Bruno Willis said:

What do you do? exit the conversation and fight them? They attack you if you havnen't given them enough. If you keep buying from them, and they keep not giving you anything, they're essentially robbing you anyway, and don't need to resort to violence. 

This is more what I would expect. The bandits should make demands of the player, and keep making those demands until the player has offered enough goods to satisfy them, as it's not ideal to fight if it can be avoided. If the player refuses to pay, then the bandits will try to take it by force. There could be a third option though--in the event the player is too poor to have anything worth taking, the bandits could simply let the player walk free since they obviously aren't worth the effort. Depending on how fancy you want to get with dialogue, the player could also have options to lie to the bandits and claim to have nothing, which may or may not work and definitely will not work if the player is wearing valuable stuff. If the player is armed to the teeth, they could also try to intimidate the bandits into backing down and avoid a fight that way, but that may or may not work either(it could depend on the quality of armor equipped).

I do want to note though, that trying to buy something from an NPC and getting nothing in return doesn't work very well in terms of gameplay. It's the kind of thing that would only happen once and the player just doesn't bother with it again, or the player gets confused and submits a bug report on the bug tracker for "missing trade goods". I think it's better to make sure that the player is either clearly getting a bad trade(overpriced, inferior goods) or being forced to hand over stuff in order to avoid harsher consequences.

[ifoz]

1 hour ago, LadyWYT said:

I do want to note though, that trying to buy something from an NPC and getting nothing in return doesn't work very well in terms of gameplay. It's the kind of thing that would only happen once and the player just doesn't bother with it again, or the player gets confused and submits a bug report on the bug tracker for "missing trade goods". I think it's better to make sure that the player is either clearly getting a bad trade(overpriced, inferior goods) or being forced to hand over stuff in order to avoid harsher consequences.

I honestly don't know about including a system where bandits could rob you for items unless there was also some chance to get them back.
Currently, when you trade with a trader, the item you traded disappears from the world forever in exchange for gears. Unless there was a way you could steal your stuff back from the bandits, I don't think it'd be that great to have them rob you and then your stuff is gone for good.

I also do still think bandits would be very intimidated by the Seraph - not only for the reasons I mentioned before, but the Seraph folktales/rumours Tobias talks about. It's clear the new worlders are a very superstitious lot of people, and for all the bandits know, provoking a Seraph might have them smote down with lightning or crushed under the fist of a fire-maned giant. I imagine a group of bandits who robs the traders would be very cautious of a Seraph, preferring to either stay away, or only do trade if the Seraph proves to be non-aggressive.

--------------

I think it would be interesting if there were two main types of bandits - actual bandits, and regular people reduced to thievery due to circumstance.
Regular bandits would be a bit more well-off than the latter, and probably not try and pick a fight with the player unless they were loaded with riches and seemed defenceless. They might trade in curiosities and other scavenged goods, but be generally shadier and kind of untrustworthy. Their prices might also not be the fairest.

The poorer type would be a desperate trader or villager, who would probably be more outright aggressive just because they need food/gears to survive another day. This kind would also probably surrender or run away if their health got too low, rather than fight to the death. If they surrendered and then the player offered them a few gears or a meal, they might thank the player by telling nearby traders of their kindness, giving a small reputation increase among the nearest traders.

--------------

Now that I'm thinking about the concept of trader reputation, I think being able to intimidate/threaten traders could be an interesting mechanic. Successfully threatening a trader would depend on your equipped items and your class (Malefactor and Blackguard would have higher chances, and wearing higher tier armour and anything to do with bones or teeth would also increase the chances. Malefactor's higher chance would be due to their past experience with thievery providing them the right kind of threats that would get a trader to cough up some goods, and Blackguard purely because of their strong build and intimidation factor). When successfully threatened, a trader would give the player 2-3 random items from their stocklist, and then refuse to trade again and have the player suffer a large reputation penalty. If the threat is unsuccessful, there would be two outcomes. The first, if the player is woefully underequipped, would be the trader just laughing them off with a minor reputation penalty. The second would be that the trader would get angry and try to chase the player out, with the player suffering a moderate reputation loss.

--------------

I also think that outright killing bandits for trying to rob you might go a little against the game's themes of humanity banding together. It could be fun if when their health got very low, bandits would either just run away or surrender. If they surrendered, the player could either let them go for free, or demand whatever gears they have on them. That way there's still a reward for the effort of dealing with them, but you don't actually have to kill them.

Edited yesterday at 03:16 AM by ifoz

[ifoz]

3 hours ago, Bruno Willis said:

Most travelers would be stone-age nomads. Their elder would pay 1 gear for full, sealed crocks, and 2 gears for any metal object, of any metal variety. (not a good deal, but they're poor). The elders would share the locations of traders freely.

Just adding this on here because I forgot to add it to my above post, but I don't think most nomads would be in the stone age.

Spoiler

Folds in Nadiya mentions that they get "plenty of scrap [delivered] from the nomads", who he makes sound distinct from the traders.

This makes me think that the "nomads" he mentions are a primarily scavenging group, who would use metal scrap for tools and armour. That could also give them more of a Vintage Story-esq vibe to their attire and encampments, being made of bits and pieces from old ruins.

Edited yesterday at 03:21 AM by ifoz

[Bruno Willis]

33 minutes ago, ifoz said:

This makes me think that the "nomads" he mentions are a primarily scavenging group, who would use metal scrap for tools and armour. That could also give them more of a Vintage Story-esq vibe to their attire and encampments, being made of bits and pieces from old ruins.

Oh I'd love to see nomad bands who have unique scrap tools and weapons as ceremonial/valuable equipment. It would be so cool to see a different sort of culture to the more typical (but still very unique and interesting) settled cultures currently in the game. 

47 minutes ago, ifoz said:

I also think that outright killing bandits for trying to rob you might go a little against the game's themes of humanity banding together. It could be fun if when their health got very low, bandits would either just run away or surrender. If they surrendered, the player could either let them go for free, or demand whatever gears they have on them. That way there's still a reward for the effort of dealing with them, but you don't actually have to kill them.

I think it would be really good if humans almost never killed each other. Even the bandits would be going round threatening and extorting, rather than killing. What's the point in killing, unless you really really have to? The world is so empty, anyone you find is at worst, a resource, and at best, a close ally and friend. Having reputation would be a fantastic option. 

49 minutes ago, ifoz said:

Now that I'm thinking about the concept of trader reputation, I think being able to intimidate/threaten traders could be an interesting mechanic. Successfully threatening a trader would depend on your equipped items and your class (Malefactor and Blackguard would have higher chances, and wearing higher tier armour and anything to do with bones or teeth would also increase the chances. Malefactor's higher chance would be due to their past experience with thievery providing them the right kind of threats that would get a trader to cough up some goods, and Blackguard purely because of their strong build and intimidation factor). When successfully threatened, a trader would give the player 2-3 random items from their stocklist, and then refuse to trade again and have the player suffer a large reputation penalty. If the threat is unsuccessful, there would be two outcomes. The first, if the player is woefully underequipped, would be the trader just laughing them off with a minor reputation penalty. The second would be that the trader would get angry and try to chase the player out, with the player suffering a moderate reputation loss.

This seems like a really helpful scenario for players who want to be thugs, they can threaten and get their temporary benefit, without resorting to full-blown murder. I've been playing a bit of Disco Elysium recently, and the dialogue in that can be very fun: it's tied to a random role + a stat, (the stats are very weird), and it lets you do this sort of thing. At the moment, V.S. dialogue is essentially pick a path storytelling, which works great. I would love to see what it would be like with challenge rolls applied though. I think that might make conversations more fraught and fun, at the cost of needing a bit more work to fill out the possible outcomes of a successful or failed dialogue attempt, and it might feel a bit odd when it'd be the only thing like that in the game. Actually, scratch that, you are never sure your fruit tree cuttings will take, likewise, you're never sure your threat will take.

Instead of stats, if V.S. wanted to add a challenge roll mechanic to dialogue, I would assign a stat point to each piece of clothing and gear that can be worn openly. Malefactor facemask: +1 skullduggery? Clockmaker's apron: +1 craft-talk. Blackguard's armor: +1 soldier's solidarity. Courtier's pantyhose: +1 flamboyance. 

This is sort of an alternative to the quite cool way the game currently recognizes your background and automatically opens up special lines of dialogue for you because of that. If we used challenge rolls and improvements to the chances of some challenges based on gear, we'd instead get to open up those dialogue options if we could pass a semi-risky check. It would give more fluidity to your character - have you changed? You've gravitated towards your same old equipment so no, or you're wearing noble's clothing now, and lots of bling... +4 Oldmoney, you don't look like a malefactor anymore. But it would make conversation a challenge rather than a natural, non-stressed way of telling the story. That's a design choice for the devs, I think, rather than a hard and fast one is better than the other decision. 

[LadyWYT]

1 hour ago, ifoz said:

I also think that outright killing bandits for trying to rob you might go a little against the game's themes of humanity banding together. It could be fun if when their health got very low, bandits would either just run away or surrender. If they surrendered, the player could either let them go for free, or demand whatever gears they have on them. That way there's still a reward for the effort of dealing with them, but you don't actually have to kill them.

 

14 minutes ago, Bruno Willis said:

I think it would be really good if humans almost never killed each other. Even the bandits would be going round threatening and extorting, rather than killing. What's the point in killing, unless you really really have to? The world is so empty, anyone you find is at worst, a resource, and at best, a close ally and friend. Having reputation would be a fantastic option. 

I somewhat disagree. It does go a little against the core themes of humanity's remnants banding together and struggling to survive, however, given what human nature is, there's going to be at least a handful of ruffians that decide to prey on their fellow man in order to survive. I don't think killing such should necessarily be the first, or only option, for the player(Skyrim really failed on this count), but sometimes the fight can't really be avoided. It could also be an interesting juxtaposition against the typical NPC friendliness if the player occasionally has to deal with more bloodthirsty sorts.

That being said, in regards to a reputation system, if the player immediately resorts to violence every time they encounter bandits, that could also rack up a reputation that might not be the best. Honest NPCs might hold a dim view of bandits, but they're probably also going to be at least a little uneasy around someone who's known to be hot-tempered to a ruthless extent.

In any case, when it comes to bandits and overall story themes, it might also be just as well to leave them out, if the devs want to focus entirely on the remnants of humanity cooperating with each other and leave the more unpleasant bits to the imagination. Same goes for player interaction with NPCs; I'd like to see a reputation system as I think that would make interacting with NPCs more interesting, but if the player character is supposed to be a helpful hero-type then it doesn't really make sense to allow the player to ruin their reputation as a benevolent force.

[ifoz]

36 minutes ago, LadyWYT said:

In any case, when it comes to bandits and overall story themes, it might also be just as well to leave them out, if the devs want to focus entirely on the remnants of humanity cooperating with each other and leave the more unpleasant bits to the imagination.

I'm kind of leaning the same way right now - bandits could definitely exist and/or be implied, but I think if any kind of shifty or shady NPCs were to be added that they shouldn't be particularly hostile. You could still have thief/scavenger type traders who just have different dialogue and trade in different goods, without including things like an actual theft system or way to aggro them. I think that could be a nice way to include some more trader variation and flavour, without making it so you actually have to fight them. Maybe give their dialogue a gruff/less friendly tone as well, just to set them apart.
 

 

1 hour ago, Bruno Willis said:

Malefactor facemask: +1 skullduggery?

Honestly if the Malefactor mask gives +1 skullduggery, some of the trader masks would give +10 
It's kind of funny that the Seraphs aren't really dressed all that strangely compared to the traders, who will wear things like wolf skulls strapped to their faces, the bones of a rabbit hung around their necks, old welding masks, primitive gas masks.

The devs have said before they plan to make trader clothing wearable by the player (my best guess is in the upcoming 1.22._ update with other shelved 1.22 content), it'll be interesting to see what kind of outfits players make with this stuff.



A little while back I messed around with the files to insert trader clothing onto the player (internally it's all Seraph-sized, but the game trims it down to fit the traders).
This is one of the outfits I came up with, a mix of the 'shady' set and the 'sailor' hose, the 'dark' shirt and the mining helmet for good measure.
(The pendant and belt are already Seraph clothing though, I just thought they looked nice with this outfit).

Edited 23 hours ago by ifoz

[Bruno Willis]

2 hours ago, ifoz said:

That's one shifty seraph! 

2 hours ago, ifoz said:

I'm kind of leaning the same way right now - bandits could definitely exist and/or be implied, but I think if any kind of shifty or shady NPCs were to be added that they shouldn't be particularly hostile. You could still have thief/scavenger type traders who just have different dialogue and trade in different goods, without including things like an actual theft system or way to aggro them. I think that could be a nice way to include some more trader variation and flavour, without making it so you actually have to fight them. Maybe give their dialogue a gruff/less friendly tone as well, just to set them apart.

I think this would really be the more fun way to do this, but I heard the devs talking about putting bandits in the game in an interview, and I wouldn't want to be running around killing folk, so I'm trying to subtilty influence them to having bandits be people you can talk to. 

If I were to put thief-shifty traders in the game, I'd love to add dialogue that shows them being uninterested in the history of the things they're looting. I.e.

"Place was a mess when I found it, mold everywhere. Burned the tapestries and bookshelves and things to keep warm, but I kept these little beauties... what'll you offer me for them"

I wonder if there would be a way for these sorts of traders to scam players. Something like "I can offer you a special deal today though. Nomads dropped this off to me, they didn't know what they'd got their hands on..." shows metal scraps. "A rope and stick and this trick I'll teach you, and you could make one of the most powerful weapons, right out of our brutal history. Only 5 gears and I'll teach the trick to you, what-da-ya say?"

It's not exactly a lie, but they're taking advantage of ignorance to get a good price. I think that'd be fun. 

[ifoz]

26 minutes ago, Bruno Willis said:

I wonder if there would be a way for these sorts of traders to scam players. Something like "I can offer you a special deal today though. Nomads dropped this off to me, they didn't know what they'd got their hands on..." shows metal scraps. "A rope and stick and this trick I'll teach you, and you could make one of the most powerful weapons, right out of our brutal history. Only 5 gears and I'll teach the trick to you, what-da-ya say?"

Only if they do it so that if you buy into every scam offer, on something like the fifth time, whatever item he offers is in fact legitimate or useful and he doesn't know. 

 

26 minutes ago, Bruno Willis said:

I think this would really be the more fun way to do this, but I heard the devs talking about putting bandits in the game in an interview, and I wouldn't want to be running around killing folk, so I'm trying to subtilty influence them to having bandits be people you can talk to. 

Do you know which interview this was? I've seen a few of the various dev interviews, but probably not all of them, or missed this part.
I'm hoping if they do add bandits, they don't just have them as enemies. I don't think they would though, given they probably understand that'd go against the game's general themes to have human foes who just kill on sight. Way less interesting than offering interactions with them too, especially if certain interactions were class-specific.
I mean, we can even play as a bandit/thief (Malefactor). To let us do that and then just have bandits/thieves as enemies with no further depth would be a bit strange.

In the worst case scenario where they decide to have bandits and then for whatever reason just make them hostile on sight, I'd be pretty unhappy with their inclusion. Having more humanoid enemies that aren't Rust creatures doesn't bring much to the table if they attack you all the same, and it'd take away from player/class roleplay. Half the classes probably have killing someone as the last thing they want to do, and bandit enemies would have this happen multiple times over. (Clockmaker and Tailor are averse to violence, and Malefactor's weakness in combat is established to be from a guilty conscience / not wanting to hurt anyone). In such a world I'd probably get a mod to make them neutral, just to have that element of choice.

I know I said it earlier, but I think a far better implementation would be having them surrender or run off after fighting, with the player able to demand gears for their release. That way you'd get a reward for dealing with them and getting them out of the area, without excessive violence and/or death. That or not even having them as true enemies, and instead a neutral faction with unique interactions.
(It'd be pretty fun if you could gamble with them over a game of omok, just sayin'!)

Edited 19 hours ago by ifoz

[ifoz]

8 hours ago, Bruno Willis said:

Did they grow up wanting to live alone and isolated, and then leave their parents and go out into the wild and just wait? For who? Me? 

Something with the new traders, I really hope they get more varied dialogue.
All of them have identical dialogue, including the reason they're out there in the first place (wealth).

Giving different traders different dialogue would be really fun, even if there were only 5-10 different dialogue styles a trader would randomly spawn with.
Maybe even relate it to their 'personality'. Currently, traders have a kind of 'personality' (I don't know what it's actually called) that determines how they greet you, and their posture.
It's why some traders hold their hands behind their back when idle and gesture with one hand when approached, why some stand up straight and extend both arms in greeting, why some are hunched over and wave when greeting you. I don't think posture is linked to greeting gesture, but they are set for each trader when they generate.
That kind of thing could be expanded into a few different variants of the standard dialogue, with different tones and reasons for being out in the wilds.

One of them could be the standard 'wealth' reasoning, one could be the lone survivor of an overrun settlement, one could have grown up out there and had traders for parents, one could have been taken in by traders when visiting a settlement, one could have grown up in a larger settlement but always dreamed of living off the land ever since they were young, one might just dislike company and would rather live in the wilds than around people, one might find it useful to live in the wilds for the untouched loot in ruins, one might have been thrown out of their settlement for some disagreement or crime, etc.

That and more voice instrument variation for traders would go a long way to giving them more personality (though the new models definitely helped a lot!)

Edited 19 hours ago by ifoz

[Bruno Willis]

15 minutes ago, ifoz said:

One of them could be the standard 'wealth' reasoning, one could be the lone survivor of an overrun settlement, one could have grown up out there and had traders for parents, one could have been taken in by traders when visiting a settlement, one could have grown up in a larger settlement but always dreamed of living off the land ever since they were young, one might just dislike company and would rather live in the wilds than around people, one might find it useful to live in the wilds for the untouched loot in ruins, one might have been thrown out of their settlement for some disagreement or crime, etc.

The benefit of the instrument sound vocals + written dialogue is that it should be rather easy to add and expand dialogue. I'd love to see more dialogue, and more of the recent world stories told through traders. Imagine running into one rare trader who's an elderly gossip, who can tell you about the nearest two traders:

"Oh Thrift. Yes yes, she came here only eight years back, fleeing her hateful family she said. Except she had some very nice pieces to sell, right away. A matching set of plates and cups, heirloom, you know. Wonder where that came from, eh?"

I wonder if when setting the personality, alongside giving the traders a bit of different dialogue, it could add something to their structures: if they're dreaming of living off the land, give them a small farm plot too, or a couple of goats. If they're the remnants of a ruined settlement, surround them with recently burned ruins, etc. That'd mean even if you saw the same trader structure, it'd have even more uniqueness (they already get different decorations for each trader type, which works great). 

I'd love it if each personality had some unique dialogue tree, which if negotiated cleverly could let you figure out a way to get discounts from the traders. You'd only need about 6 of those to get a really cool effect, like you're getting to know the trader and get on their good side.

I'd also love it if traders would offer a loaf of bread or some basic snack if you reached them and were close to starving to death. Human compassion, you know. I would also like to be able to bring them wines and share a jug with them.

[ifoz]

Unrelated, but thought you might be interested to know that some of the trader sets' internal names give us some clues of what else these people get up to other than sitting at home and trading.
There's sets (I say sets, but usually it's one or two pieces with a special name per) with the names; 'sailor', 'trapper', 'forester', 'spelunker', 'scholar' and the 'shady' one I mentioned earlier.
Some also have other unnamed pieces that look like they could be part of that set - the forester jacket for example is the exact same shade of green as the rag handwraps, so I imagine they were designed together. The 'shady' coat matches with the 'Nadiyan eye' hood, as well as the copper-reinforced gloves and boots. The sailor hose have the same stitching style (brown seam with red cross stitching) as one of the short sleeve shirts.

Sailor set consists of a vest and hose, though also that shirt if you count it. Scholar is a vest and hose, trapper is a hat and hose. Forester is just a jacket, but does have the matching handwraps. Shady is just a coat, but has the matching hood, gloves and boots. Spelunker is just a shirt, but does match with the mining helmet due to being mining-related.

Sidenote but a bit of a fun fact, luxuries traders are actually prevented from wearing certain poorer/more primitive items. Anything to do with bone (wolf skull mask, bone bracers, bone jacket, etc) as well as any footwraps are taken out of their wearable pool.

Just some cool details about the traders and what they get up to!


The different sets I mentioned, though I combined forester and trapper onto one mannequin.
You can't normally get these in survival yet, I'm showing them like this through editing the game's files and replacing normal player clothing with them.

Edited 16 hours ago by ifoz

[Bruno Willis]

11 hours ago, ifoz said:

Unrelated, but thought you might be interested to know that some of the trader sets' internal names give us some clues of what else these people get up to other than sitting at home and trading.

The design on these outfits is just exceptional. I keep being blown away by how much love and work has gone into this game. Great to see them set up like this.

[ifoz]

I think I've said it before in a different post, but it'd be awesome to see the luxuries trader system work for other trader types. Luxuries currently can't wear anything to do with bones or any footwraps - expanding this to other traders could be really interesting. Treasure hunters being more likely to wear scrap armour and things like the mining helmet, climbing belt and filament lamp. Clothing traders not being able to wear anything too raggedy or tattered, survival goods traders being more likely to wear something raggedy or tattered.

[LadyWYT]

19 minutes ago, ifoz said:

survival goods traders being more likely to wear something raggedy or tattered.

I would more expect survival goods traders to be clad in rawhide and pelts, like a medieval Daniel Boone. Reason being is that most people like to wear nice clothes and look presentable, and clothing is also a critical part of protecting oneself from the elements. So their fashion choices might be a bit more "rustic" than what other traders have access to or prefer, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're going to look shabby. 

[cjameshuff]

1 hour ago, LadyWYT said:

I would more expect survival goods traders to be clad in rawhide and pelts, like a medieval Daniel Boone. Reason being is that most people like to wear nice clothes and look presentable, and clothing is also a critical part of protecting oneself from the elements. So their fashion choices might be a bit more "rustic" than what other traders have access to or prefer, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're going to look shabby. 

And treasure hunters are going to want to show off treasure they've hunted.

[ifoz]

2 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

I would more expect survival goods traders to be clad in rawhide and pelts, like a medieval Daniel Boone. Reason being is that most people like to wear nice clothes and look presentable, and clothing is also a critical part of protecting oneself from the elements. So their fashion choices might be a bit more "rustic" than what other traders have access to or prefer, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're going to look shabby. 

That does make sense, yeah. I just mentioned ragged clothing because there are a few ragged/tattered trader clothes, but not many made of pelts. There is the leather/bone jacket and the trader fur wrap, but other than that there isn't much pelt/hide clothing for the traders right now.
It'd make sense if there was though, especially for survival traders.

That and more fur clothes for the cold climate traders. Cold traders can't wear sandals or any footwear with exposed skin, which makes sense, but they can still wear things like short sleeve shirts. There are some trader fur clothes (two types of fur boots, the fur wrap, the fur shirt, the warm vest and the fur vest) but I think that if cold traders were more likely to wear these types of warm clothing, there would probably need to be more so that they could have about equal variation as the other traders.

Edited 1 hour ago by ifoz