Talk:Courier - Layout

Courier - Layout

Comments
I'm trying to be purely subjective objective here, my questions are in the interest of sincerely seeking a better system. So far this is looking very similar to what has been worked out. I did notice one nuance- the expiration is described as the length of time the package is allowed to be in transit, excellent idea. If this expiration is set too low it could negatively affect Couriers' ability to take on a batch of contracts at once. - Onshuu 04:12, March 11, 2014 (UTC)

That's the goal, to clarify and expand upon what's currently worked out. I urge you to take a look at what I wrote down as a change to what happens with Collateral on failed delivery as well. "The Collateral the Courierpaid is added to the Reward for future attempts to deliver the Sealed Package." The reason I put that in there is that it incentivizes difficult deliveries and can make them more likely to be taken the longer they are undelivered. DaenGaming (talk) 04:15, March 11, 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it would be a powerful incentive for Couriers to keep an eye on the available Contracts. I think one fair way to set the lowest value for the Reward is to base it on the distance that would have to be travelled to go from Origin to Destination. So if n% of the value of the Sealed Package was below the calculated distance-based price, the Reward is the distance based price. I like how this makes sure the Courier is paid a "minimum wage" per hour basically. - Onshuu 05:15, March 11, 2014 (UTC)

What do you think about setting a ceiling for the Collateral that would also be based on distance to be travelled? So it's the lesser of the distance based ceiling or n% of the Sealed Package value. - Onshuu 05:18, March 11, 2014 (UTC)

Oh that's interesting, I like that. Risk/distance-based reward pricing makes a lot of sense. What if the calculation was done by taking an average of n% value of the Sealed Package and x amount due to distance? If you take the lowest of the two, it ends up making long journeys for low value packages inefficient. If you take the highest of the two, it ends up making short journeys for high value packages way too efficient. I just have trouble thinking of which is more important. From my perspective the distance/risk is the more important stat for the Courier but the value of the package is more important for the Recipient. DaenGaming (talk) 05:27, March 11, 2014 (UTC)

Right, I think I worded that in an odd way, I meant the Reward would be the greater of the two. Hrm, there is no correlation between the two values, you would need a 3rd variable, like a minimum distance, then scale the Reward to that.. - Onshuu 05:47, March 11, 2014 (UTC)

As for Collateral, hmm. It kind of depends on what the goal is with it to be honest, if it's meant to be an incentive for the Courier to pick jobs he/she can reliably do (my preference) it would make more sense to be based on distance. If it's supposed to be some sort of insurance (not sure why that'd be necessary) it would be optimal to do the n% of package value. Like I suggested above for the Reward, would it make sense to average out the two stats for calculating Collateral? DaenGaming (talk) 05:27, March 11, 2014 (UTC)

Hrm.. I think distance based, this ties in well with collateral adding to reward upon failure. It also doesn't bias Couriers to high value packages. - Onshuu 05:47, March 11, 2014 (UTC)

Good point on Collateral. If it's agreed that we don't want bias towards high value packages, doesn't it make sense for the minimum Reward and Collateral to be based off the same mechanic (distance)? It completely removes package value as a factor, and it's basically a question of whether that's a good thing or not. DaenGaming (talk) 05:54, March 11, 2014 (UTC)

Exactly- I would really like to have the value of a package increase the reward to give more variance to the system, keep the Couriers from getting too bored... but we'd need to find a balanced way to do that. - Onshuu 05:58, March 11, 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, it's just tricky to do that without creating an imbalance. The goal is to allow value and distance to be factors while keeping long & low value trips worth slightly more than short & high value trips. Reason being, in my opinion, if the trip is longer and/or harder the pay should be greater regardless of the package value. That being said, as a Courier I would love to have the occasional short-range job that happens to be worth a ton because some rich guy got lazy. I honestly feel like the best way to accomplish this would be to have an average of n% value and distance. The two factors aren't necessarily correlated, but to an extent it doesn't really matter. Here's an example, assuming 10% of package value averaged with 2% of distance. What this shows is that for every 10g of package value, the Reward rises by 1g and for every 50m of distance, the Reward rises by 1g. The deviation is significant enough to be worth it, but not gamebreakingly ridiculous. A high value package going to the same place as a low value package is worth significantly more, but the best jobs will always be those that encourage the Courier to travel a bit farther. DaenGaming (talk) 06:38, March 11, 2014 (UTC)
 * Low Value/Low Distance - 100g package value, 100m distance = 12g Reward
 * Low Value/Medium Distance - 100g package value, 500m distance = 20g Reward
 * Low Value/High Distance - 100g package value, 1000m distance = 30g Reward
 * Medium Value/Low Distance - 200g package value, 100m distance = 22g Reward
 * Medium Value/Medium Distance - 200g package value, 500m distance = 30g Reward
 * Medium Value/High Distance - 200g package value, 1000m distance = 40g Reward
 * High Value/Low Distance - 300g package value, 100m distance = 32g Reward
 * High Value/Medium Distance - 300g package value, 500m distance = 40g Reward
 * High Value/High Distance - 300g package value, 1000m distance = 50g Reward

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're getting at. I'd rather not see deliveries based on some preset formula, but rather on a Player / Courier auction style system. As a player, I post a delivery order to the Contract Broker system, and set a price I'm willing to pay. If that is a price that a Courier is willing to receive, they pick up the deal and run with it. If my price is too low, it sits until someone is willing to take it, or I remove it and repost with a higher price. Through the Contract Broker system, there are no guarantees, and prices need not even be in Coin. I could, in fact, offer crafted run speed boosts as the reward for delivery. The prices would fluctuate by where the key markets were, as well as how far the distance was. A delivery between two major player-created hubs might have a lower cost than a delivery between two player claims - even if the distance between the two major hubs was further. This is because of the opportunity for new courier contracts that can be found at the hubs, as opposed to the lack of business the player claims facilitate. The game would look at these varying prices on the aggregate, divide by the distance traveled, and settle on an "average price per meter" which is displayed to players who purchase items on the Market place. From the perspective of the courier, a Sealed Package is just one inventory slot in their courier bag. It has no weight, and the only challenge is in getting it from Point A to Point B as quickly as possible so that they can perform another delivery. The value of the product inside is an arbitrary one, and can only be valuated by the player requesting delivery. Due to this, I don't see why there is a need to base the price for delivery off the "value" of the product. Audranian (talk) 15:49, March 11, 2014 (UTC)

Daen: I like the variance, but maybe I was wrong- I think we should let the buyers increase the Reward over the "floor" value to get their stuff quicker, and let that be the variance that attempts to stifle boredom. - Onshuu 18:39, March 11, 2014 (UTC)

Arien: I agree that we really want players to set Reward values, but there should be a floor for Market purchases- Maybe we should base the floor only on distance, then if a player wants it quicker, they just increase the Reward. Regarding Market purchases: A Courier can choose to give the recipient a discount upon delivery, but we want to make sure the market stays healthy for the Couriers' sake so we set the floor of the Reward based on distance. A side note, I don't want to see price per meter on the UI, the player should pick the destination and the floor amount is displayed as a minimum cost for the destination, they can increase it but not decrease it. Average player: All I care about is getting my stuff delivered, whats the minimum cost to get it? I like the idea of discounting the Reward by a small percentage if the destination is set to a Postal Hub. - Onshuu 18:36, March 11, 2014 (UTC)

@Arien: The goal is for this formula/the limitations to just be a floor for deliveries. It makes it difficult to have the system running smoothly if there isn't a standard for the value of deliveries, because it can end up massively inflating the Reward for Couriers. If there isn't a frame of reference it's really hard to derive fair pricing, which is why we've been working towards having some sort of calculated minimum that can be increased but not decreased.

@Onshuu: Good point. That does make sense and it fits with the Collateral thematically. DaenGaming (talk) 18:45, March 11, 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Contract Broker: I don't know if we really want to link the floor to the cut-throat Contract Broker market. I think of this as kind of like mixing PvE & PvP- one system has factors that are controlled by the game to protect "average" players, the other does not, or has fewer of these controlled factors. It will be challenging to make the UI and functionality for Contracts simple enough for the average player to easily understand and feel like they can tackle using it to get the result they want. I think that topic is somewhat related but can we try to keep that conversation in the Contracts / Contract Broker sections? - Onshuu 18:52, March 11, 2014 (UTC)

By the way, in the confines of what is currently laid out here where does the Postal Hub come in? Would it be a third prop (in addition to Mailbox and Courier Board) with the sole purpose of allowing players to create Sealed Packages and Courier Contracts? DaenGaming (talk) 18:56, March 11, 2014 (UTC)

Because of the way the game is currently laid out (islands all equal distance from each other because you can teleport) I think the only difference between a Postal Hub and a Mailbox is that the Postal Hub is public, charges a percentage for use (paid to owner), and requires an upkeep payment.

For example, if I'm out on a mining expedition on a different island or on the other side of the island, I could go to a nearby Postal Hub and write a Courier Contract for the pile of stuff I've mined. I would not be able to use someone's private Mailbox to do that. If/when they make the islands larger, or restructure into massive continents I think the Postal Hubs will be much more valuable.

You could also introduce mechanics that encourage owners of postal hubs to work together. Idea: If I "link"(game mechanic) my Postal Hub with another player's, the upkeep for both of our Postal Hubs is reduced- the more Postal Hubs that link up the lower the cost of upkeep for everyone in the network. Prices to deliver to to a Postal Hub within the network are brought down by a reasonable %. If the "network discount" is shown to customers maybe it'll encourage them to use your postal network over others, bring in more $... Does this make sense or am I missing holes in the logic? - Onshuu 20:26, March 11, 2014 (UTC)

I definitely see the logic, for sure, but is there a reason that the Postal Hub's job can't be performed effectively by Mailboxes? It seems strange to introduce an extra prop that has overlapped functionality. What if Mailboxes were able to link with other Mailboxes and could create a network discount? DaenGaming (talk) 20:44, March 11, 2014 (UTC)

... hrm... I guess I just want to feel special if I run a Post Office(abstract)- this isn't all purely about simplifying mechanics, though I agree it's warranted in some cases...

So then anyone could just click a checkbox on their Mailbox UI to make it public, and link theirs with other peoples'.. So a person's Mailbox will start charging upkeep if they're marked public, and then take on the expanded functionality of the Postal Hub idea? I guess that could work, the fuzzy feeling still comes from my Mailbox being public, I just don't get a different special prop to show off that I'm a "Post Office".

Oh yeah, what about the integrated 12 slots with unique permissions for Mailboxes? Did you see that? That's a feature that would be unique to Mailboxes if you included it in your system. - Onshuu 21:43, March 11, 2014 (UTC)

Gotcha. As far as linking is concerned, does it serve a purpose other than lowering the cost of upkeep? Are there gameplay elements associated with the linkage or with making your Mailbox/Postal Hub public? I haven't seen the thing about the integrated slots with Mailboxes, where's that located so I can read up on it and be informed? DaenGaming (talk) 22:25, March 11, 2014 (UTC)

The Postal Hub is a one-slot mailbox which is available at the main hub for players who do not have access to a mailbox. It is expected that most islands will have a mailbox, and the Postal Hub, like the Stone Forge, will become an object which is never used, and never noticed. It's importance is only as a redundancy to ensure players have SOME form of a mailbox on the island. Mailboxes, as far as I understand, do not cost upkeep. They are props which can be placed on claims. The claims themselves cost upkeep. Players are encouraged to make their mailboxes available to the public as it will increase traffic towards their claim. There are numerous reasons why a player might wish to do this.

As for the "base" price, I see no reason in putting in an arbitrary price floor or price ceiling on Courier contracts through the Contract Broker. The price floor is effectively the cost of 15 minutes of gameplay - a value which will change with inflation of currency. The price ceiling is based on the cost for instant delivery with Station Cash and the cost to convert in-game currency to Station Cash. Once again, this value will change with the inflation of currency.

The contract broker ensures that the "average price" for delivery is based on supply and demand. If demand is high, players will pay more for deliveries in order to get their delivery done quickly. Couriers will select the highest price deals to maximize their profitability, and pick up guaranteed deliveries on-route to further increase their gain per trip. If demand from players is low, then the price will drop. Couriers will take lower and lower value offerings in an effort to make whatever they can from they dried up demand. If the price drop to a low enough price, this will cause Couriers to leave the profession - a signal that the Supply of couriers is too high. If the price floats to a higher value, more players will seek to play as a courier since it is more lucrative to do so. In this way, the supply and demand of couriers can be kept in check by the price of the broker.

The price which is determined by this fluctuating market is averaged on a weekly basis per meter, and displayed to any buyers who opt for the Guaranteed Delivery. Buyers selecting this option are not able to adjust this price. They can accept it, and get guaranteed delivery, or they can reject it and try their luck on the Contract Broker system to get a better price. In doing so, they will drive the average price downward or upward based on how they price their contract if it is accepted and delivered by a courier. Please note that only those Courier contracts which are DELIVERED affect the average price - not the massive variations that occur in the market.

By putting a base price, you are defining the value of all traded goods, and preventing players from finding ways to become more efficient in deliveries. It is counter-intuitive, but since delivery is driven by VOLUME, the establishment of a base price actually hurts the Couriers more than it helps them. Audranian (talk) 23:00, March 11, 2014 (UTC)

In theory wouldn't public mailboxes accomplish the same thing as a Postal Hub at the main hub? If a player doesn't have their own mailbox, they can go use someone else's. Keep in mind SOE has basically guaranteed that the final product won't be organized into islands; it will be one large procedurally generated map.

How specifically would this Contract Broker ensure an average value of Courier services? What mechanics and algorithms would be used to calculate this average in a way that is clear to players? Your post seems to be making things a lot more complex than they need to be. Since delivery is driven by volume and the base price can rise based on the Recipients' Reward payment, how does exploring efficiency become prevented? As a Courier, my goal is to make as much money as possible. I want to pick the Courier Contracts that make me the most money in the shortest amount of time, so my entire goal is to maximize efficiency. The jobs that are a short distance are the most efficient, but I can make more overall with longer trips if the Contract has a higher Reward on it. This requires me to plan my route and look for Courier Contracts that fit what I feel like doing. Regardless of my choice I will make a baseline amount for the amount of work I have to put in due to the base price, but the value set in the Courier Contract heavily influences it as well. DaenGaming (talk) 23:30, March 11, 2014 (UTC)

Never mind about the shared slot thing, I think it's an unnecessary complication where a Contract could be used.

SOE is going to set the baseline pricing for the economy because they will have vendors that will give coin for your goods- that's something we can't control and it affects everything. We apparently have different ideas of what a Postal Hub would be. As far as I know we are unsure on how long the world will exist as islands and whether those islands will be enlarged. It's correct that if being a Courier is not profitable because the demand isn't high enough the whole concept collapses. That's why there must be a floor for Market purchases that is not linked to the Contract Broker, otherwise you are forcing PvP on PvE players. Do you see the correlation?

There are no guarantees with the Contract Broker. I see the Market as the safe place to do business (PvE mentality) and the Contract Broker is the "open market" (PvP mentality). - Onshuu 23:41, March 11, 2014 (UTC)

@DaenGaming: ​The Postal Hub is a necessary redundancy to prevent players from being excluded from basic services due to griefing or other blacklisting.
 * At the onset of the game, there will be a need for a postal system in the days prior to players creating mailboxes.
 * If permissions allow a player to deny another player to use their mailbox, then that player will need some form of a mailbox.

As for the island vs continents comment, if you can find a verifyable reference confirming this, I would greatly appreciate it. I've been looking for one since Alpha, and to date, the only assurance I've had is that "things will be different".

Regardless of the island/continent point, the math is very very simple. Take the total amount of money paid in courier fees over the past week. Divide that by the total straightline distance (in meters) of those contracts which were sold. Now you have your contract average price per meter for the week. You'd of course remove any outliers which fall outside of the 3 standard deviations, but the basic premise remains the same. The player purchasing from the Market Board doesn't need to calculate this - it is done for them automatically, and only ONE price is presented to them. Those haggling through the Contract Broker can debate on prices, and vie for the lowest price delivery. A futures market could even evolve, as well as any market system players can create. We don't want to prevent this - just let the market function naturally. Let me be clear here. The "guaranteed delivery" price will fluctuate every time it is recalculated. As the number of packages delivered increases, the price will become more stable. That's the nature of averages.

Your goal as a courier isn't just to take the highest priced contracts for the shortest distance. You're also considering destinations onroute. As an experienced courier, you'll know about the player cities and mailboxes which you can make a small detour to hit, and improve the total packages you deliver. A location which has a high quantity of contracts will be much more valuable to go to than a location which does not have many contracts. The actions of couriers will actually reinforce the establishment of player-cities.

@Onshuu

Contracts must NOT be allowed to be delivered automatically to players through any mechanic beyond the Contract Broker system! This is VERY important, or the entire courier system is completely invalidated. I can create a contract which has the objective "Jump" and have an attached package as a reward. If I can mail this contract at no cost to another player, once they accept the contract and jump, the package is automatically put into their inventory, bypassing the entire courier system.

As for the floor, if the guaranteed delivery rate on the Market Board for delivery is a paltry 1 copper per 24,000 meters, then that means that the average contracts being ACCEPTED by Couriers over the last week has been 1 copper / 24Km. If we artificially raise that price floor, we create inefficiencies in the player market. Let the market decide what the prices are, and do NOT set an arbitrary price. Audranian (talk) 00:30, March 12, 2014 (UTC)

@Audranian: I'm not sure where you read that I want to transport things instantly at any time...? - Onshuu 00:48, March 12, 2014 (UTC)

"create inefficiencies in the player market"- explain. - Onshuu 00:48, March 12, 2014 (UTC)

@Onshuu: If you institute a price floor, you make it impossible for a player to use the contract broker to price a courier type contract below the price floor. Let's say, for the sake of numbers, that the price floor was set to 10 copper / 1km. If there were a hundred players who wished to price a courier contract for less than 10 copper / 1km, they would be unable to do so, even if there were a hundred players who were eager to accept that price for the contract. The buyers would be worse off - they are less likely to use the courier service at all. The couriers are worse off - they have fewer contracts to supplement their income.

Price Floors also prevent any players from pricing in another form of currency - such as rubies. The price floor effectively makes it illegal for a courier to use the contract broker purchase contracts at a price point that they wish to receive, and prevents buyers from connecting with such couriers. These lost opportunities result in lost business, and inefficiencies in the market. To handle these inefficiencies in the market, black markets appear, which allow players to handle such transactions. As a real-life example, we see this kind of occurence regularly in minimum-wage laws which prevent otherwise able workers from being able to find work which matches their skill level. This results in unnecessary unemployment, as well as makes it harder for businesses to grow. -  Audranian (talk) 20:00, March 12, 2014 (UTC)

@Arien: I'm sorry, but at the end there did you just insinuate that we shouldn't have minimum wage laws because they prevent people from working and make it harder for businesses to grow? Without minimum wage we would have sweat shops and basically no standards for work conditions, so that parallel is ridiculous. Minimum wage is a way to stop employers from taking advantage of workers' desperation for work. Are you trying to say that there are people that are able workers but aren't worth $7.14 an hour?

Anyway, back to Couriers. I actually agree with the underlying premise, to an extent; a price floor could end up being relatively arbitrary. That being said, I still feel there's merit in having some sort of baseline for transactions. An example of this I'll use is Runescape, though it's not necessarily directly applicable. In Runescape, trades that went through the market hub (grand exchange) had an average price as set by the transactions that happened the previous day. This average was the baseline; you could almost guarantee that a relatively common item would eventually make it through trade at the average price, but you could try to make money or speed up transactions by going above/below the average. I would like to see something like this with the Couriers, where there is always an 'average cost of delivery' as set by the players using the system. This allows there to be a fluid economy surrounding the system but it also facilitates the service. If prices are completely random, there would be potential for people either opting out of the system due to not wanting to jip themselves/others, overpaying by accident, or underpaying and never having anything delivered. DaenGaming (talk) 20:36, March 12, 2014 (UTC)

Ok, for the first week of the game, how does the Market(not Contract Broker) auto-populate the Reward field? I think having no "starting point" would be a source of player frustration initially. Would we just leave it blank for the first week? - Onshuu 20:30, March 12, 2014 (UTC)

Imo there should always be a starting point, though it's always going to be pretty arbitrary. In the above example I used, with Runescape, items always start at a price predetermined by the developers and quickly reach where they are supposed to be. There's always some market confusion in the first few days of a release, but it gets ironed out really quickly. DaenGaming (talk) 20:36, March 12, 2014 (UTC)

Is the distinction between the Contract Broker and the Market clear? - Onshuu 20:52, March 12, 2014 (UTC)