Increasing blacksmith profit percentage

[Tingyun]

@Grey Roger mentioned previously that he found the blacksmith costs under new sword prices too low. This seems a correct observation, and something we didn't account for when we did the 50% drop in weapon prices.

The attached file aims to correct this, by tripling the blacksmith profit percentage factor from 10 to 30:
#define BLACKSMITH_PROFITPERCENT 30 // INT - The blacksmith will add this percentage for his own profit //TY increasing to reflect new prices

This x3 is part of an additive factor, and doesn't operate on the entire price (ie, upgrades will NOT be 3 times as expensive). Here is the code this define goes into in items_utilite:
UpgradePrice = NewBladePrice - OldBladePrice;
IntermediatePrice = NewBladePrice - OldBladePrice;
UpgradePrice += (IntermediatePrice * pricemult) * BLACKSMITH_PROFITPERCENT;

Of course, this is a change only to a default define in InternalSettings, and can be freely changed by the player.

This is not a fix aimed just at the experimental version, it is a general fix, and it is already needed for the 50% weapon price reduction that was incorporated into the general mod to reduce land loot.

If anyone wants to suggest a different default number, feel free to do so. Otherwise, file attached.

I am leaving very soon, @Pieter Boelen , can you manage any further discussion on this and post to new content if agreed upon?

 

[Pieter Boelen]

Oh dear.... Is Grey Roger now going to respond with the infamous "I won't say anything anymore because it will get picked up on and changed" thing?

 

[Tingyun]

I'm actually hoping this will end up being a very moderate change, the increased define is only working on the additive factor here, not the full price:
UpgradePrice += (IntermediatePrice * pricemult) * BLACKSMITH_PROFITPERCENT;

I think most of blacksmith cost is opportunity cost anyway--getting to the port, spending a few days sitting paying wages and not making profit, etc. Considering a good merchant cargo run can get some 20,000 or more gold even in a smallish ship for a week or so of work, the opportunity cost of sitting and waiting for the blacksmith should generally be more than the out-of-pocket expense anyway, especially in bigger ships.

This should just be a slight notch up in blacksmith costs, to make them still feel right with the 50% weapon price cut. More of a feel issue than game balance given the above, and shouldn't increase difficulty in any real way.

 

[Grey Roger]

Oh dear.... Is Grey Roger now going to respond with the infamous "I won't say anything anymore because it will get picked up on and changed" thing?

No, he's going to respond with the even more infamous call to put weapon prices back the way they were, then this wouldn't be necessary in the first place.

 

[Tingyun]

Ah yes, the good old days when a handful of swords and guns cost as much as a small ship, and one sword with the same stats might be priced at 4000 while another basically eauivlant one might be 600, with no real reason in terms of design/gems/gold or otherwise. My castaway did enjoy making upwards of 6,000 gold per small group of bandits killed once we got to a decent level, but it did cut into the desire to eventually go to sea.

Or, we just upload this one line of blacksmith change, and we have a more immersive and roleplaying-sensible economic system, combined with better game balance in terms of land vs sea loot.

 

[Pieter Boelen]

No, he's going to respond with the even more infamous call to put weapon prices back the way they were, then this wouldn't be necessary in the first place.

Yep, that's nicely "infamous" too!

To be honest, I prefer to not get too involved in these balancing changes. My main personal concern is with broken stuff being fixed.
As much as I like improvements, I don't particularly care about those right now.

Maybe it would be wisest to really and truly start thoroughly rebelancing the game after the next EXE has been posted.
Possibly even after the next EXE has been confirmed ready for public release.
Just so that all the fixes are available to everyone without being linked to any balancing changes.

I do believe the game could stand some serious rebalancing though as it was never properly thought through and is a bit of an illogical mess.
But that is a big job that affects a LOT of the game. So it'll probably be controversial for a while even if it IS a good idea.
Plus gaining proper feedback will be time-consuming too. Can't do it if people have to start a new game every few days.

 

[Tingyun]

I think Levis still intends to do a fixes only version. My understanding was that would still involve the 50% reduction to weapon prices, as that was an old fix for unbalanced land loot value not connected to the experiments (happened long before), but I don't care much either way

What I have objected to is reverting the experimental version to July 28th prices, which wouldn't make any sense and would make loot values unbalanced, especially in connection to armor being lootable commonly now.

I will also say if people are reporting balancing problems, then of course things can be adjusted (like I did for the tizona) to avoid any disruptions. But wholesale reversion for no other reason than "it changed, move it back" doesn't make sense for the experimental release.

 

[Pieter Boelen]

But wholesale reversion for no other reason than "it changed, move it back" doesn't make sense for the experimental release.

For the "official EXE", I'd like the next version to at least be objectively better than the current one.
As much as the balancing is off right now, keeping it "as-is" in there isn't worse than it currently is in there already.

I'm convinced that the rebalancing work you've worked so hard on actually IS an improvement.
Or at the very least, it certainly can be, given enough feedback and time.

But it is all also clearly controversial (for some good and some not-so-good reasons) and may still need to go through a few iterations.
Which is what the experimental release is perfect for!

 

[Tingyun]

@Pieter Boelen completely agreed--I am only opposed to people calling for my changes to be wholesale reverted from the experimental version. The exe and fixes only version should be just that.

As a general matter, I do think the "controversy" is much less than it appears. I think we have a vocal minority of two people who very much dislike many of my changes, and very likely a broader playerbase who likes having AI equip armor, item changes to keep that balanced, trade winds, etc, and will certainly like it even more with some minor tweaking going forward to perfect the systems. Players like @Darby McGraw who like trying the new things, and presumably with their feedback, they can be made even better over time. My releases were getting downloaded decently heavily (usually reached 8 if I left them up for awhile), and that was when they were hidden off in the beta forum and were somewhat hidden from players and required extra work to install.

Darby has before let me know when he didn't like something, and I removed it, so hopefully he can keep giving that kind of feedback so we can perfect the experimental release.

 

[Pieter Boelen]

@Pieter Boelen completely agreed--I am only opposed to people calling for my changes to be wholesale reverted from the experimental version.

I don't remember anyone really saying that. And if indeed they did, I don't care.
Experiments are experiments and they've got a right to be in with the other experiments.

Unfortunately the experiments now contain balancing changes (which should be tested during a longer period of play)
AND new functionality (which often breaks things and requires a new game to be started).
That doesn't seem to be going very well together....

 

[Tingyun]

Thanks @Pieter Boelen

I suggest we push this to new content for inclusion in the experimental version then, provided noone has objections to the specific amount of the increase for that version. I'll post over there with a note saying not for inclusion in main release.

And then I'll bid my goodbyes for awhile.