What about a Player Artisan Contracts system?

What if there's a system which allows players to create contracts that anyone with the requirements defined during the contract creation could just accept, and craft a given weapon for me, for a price, of course.

The value to creating a contract could be the necessary resources to produce the demanded item with some additional resources plus glint.

As soon as the item is crafted, the contract completes and the item is enabled to be claimed by the player who created the contract and the glint and extra resources are sent to the player that completed the contract

I think this system would empower the trading a lot and make artisan synergy work pretty well for everyone.

Any suggestion, doubts or clarification about problems in this system would be very appreciated. I will update the main post with the best ideas/directions.

Those contracts could be created ONLY on Economic Nodes.

Side note: I'm not suggesting this to be created before the game launch.

EDIT:

@unknownsystemerror suggested that this system can only be considered if it has a hard cap that limits the number of open contracts from a unique player, and if Intrepid gives it the right attention to avoid money launders abusing this system.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

unknownsystemerror

Think this was brought up years ago and rejected as a way to "launder" gold and other resources from bots. If I am a gold seller I can just give a specific contract to someone that they make a basic item, and then pay them X amount of gold for it as a way to avoid their "heat map" detection and tracking. While you may have the best intentions, people are out there that don't.
Intrepid has decided to go another way for that interaction with Mayoral Commissions that a mayor, based on their points available may be able to offer various tasks like crafting for pay. Since they cannot take gold out of the node treasury, and are limited by the amount of commissions they can do based on their point allotment, Intrepid thinks this will help curtail abuse (yet to be tested fully)

Tebzera

Thanks for answering my post @unknownsystemerror , and that's a fair point, but I think my idea removes a bit of the concerns around this. Like I mentioned, those contracts would be just a trading method that connects demands with the service offers. Limit the currency amount in the transactions would be a system to circumvent the money laundering AND the player who creates the contract, should also put the resources, not only gold, which helps the "anti-RMT" tracker to make its job. I also think it can reduce any potential scamming problem. Even with those clarifications, do you still think it would bring the problems you mentioned?

unknownsystemerror

Just an initial reaction is that it would be a system hardly ever used if the reward was limited when people can just sell it for whatever amount through the normal systems. Adding yet another "stretch goal" to Intrepid's already massive task of getting proposed systems online. And if there was not a cap on the number of times someone could ask a specific crafter to make a thing for them, limits would just lead to people sending multiple requests to get the same result. If it costs 10 wood and 3 ore to make a dagger and I can cap the fee at say 5g. Then I will just send them 20 dagger requests to get to the 100 g to them.

Tebzera

Just an initial reaction is that it would be a system hardly ever used if the reward was limited when people can just sell it for whatever amount through the normal systems. Adding yet another "stretch goal" to Intrepid's already massive task of getting proposed systems online.

It could be just a parallel store, more focused on craft trading. And I agree, since it is a "new" proposal, I would not expect to have this before launch. I'm just trying to highlight an opportunity

And if there was not a cap on the number of times someone could ask a specific crafter to make a thing for them, limits would just lead to people sending multiple requests to get the same result. If it costs 10 wood and 3 ore to make a dagger and I can cap the fee at say 5g. Then I will just send them 20 dagger requests to get to the 100 g to them.

Cap the number of open contracts would be a great addition to the idea. I would think that up to 5 open contracts is acceptable. As for direct contract for a specific crafter, I would not support this, the player would just need to create the contract in a node (Economic node?), and anyone with the expected requirements can just accept.

unknownsystemerror

It is always good to come up with new proposals. The problem lies in that it has been attempted in other more mainstream mmos and has had issues. Especially when there is already an established easier way to get the same items through a shop/stall/vendor system as proposed by Ashes (not even going into the economic node AH linking) Take a look at WoW's recent attempts at this and the problems they created for themselves trying to fix a problem that didn't exist for them till they decided to change a system that was already working to "promote player to player interactions"
https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/wow/t/public-crafting-orders-fix/1959083/5

Child Item