Easy Vendor System Re-Work

So after a wonderful debate about how vendors should work, I’ve thrown the old plan out the window and made a new plan. Here it goes:

Why a Vendor
Let’s say you walk into the city of the biggest guild in the game, or even the smallest. What do you expect to find? Probably nothing because everyone is out fighting mobs and titans and playing the game rather than standing around doing nothing, right? So what if the guild city had NPCs? Then the place would not look so barren, plus these NPCs would have a function: to sell the items that the guild players have made or found in their adventures.

Obtaining a Vendor
This part works the same as before because no one seemed to mind “how” to get one. So as I stated the vendors will be bought from you capitol to be placed like blocks in a beaconed space. Anyone who collaborates with the beacon can move or change the vendor as they want just like a block.

Specific Vendors
Though this part was highly debated, I still feel like this could be important. I don’t want to walk into a city and spend an hour going vendor to vendor until I find someone selling potions. (I’ve played games like that and it’s terrible and a waste of time.)
For this I still propose specified vendors. How they would work is that they can only receive items of a particular type such as potions, weapons, armor, food, and so on… Players would still be responsible for filling them, but they would be limited on what they could be filled with.
Vendor NPCs can also look different depending on the type of merchandise they sell.

Players Control the Vendors
The vendors will only sell what players create, so there is no randomly created and unlimited anything. Only player made stuff can be sold.
Then, the players control the prices of how much they want their item sold for, so basically it works like an auction house, but the vendors are still specific so I wont find a sword in the food vendor. If I am interested in a sword, I wont even look at the food vendor.

Group Pricing vs Individual Pricing (Debate Time)
There are two ways to go about this and that’s what I want to hear from other people about:

First option: Individual players set their prices. Like a consignment shop, the player will put in an item for a small fee and set a price to sell it at. Pro is that it will create more competition and drive the economy, con is that it takes away from the “group-run city” as a whole.

Second option: The group who controls the city, be it a guild or a large group of friends sharing one giant beacon, controls the prices as a whole. So my sword will sell for the same amount as my guildies’ swords, but we as a whole set that price. Pro is that it will encourage community, but con is that it takes away individual competition. Also it will encourage competition between groups or cities rather than against your close friends and guildies.

I would like to hear some opinion on this. Personally I am all about the group and would rather see my city grow as a whole for my entire guild rather than one person, but at the same time the individual would drive better competition and probably do better for the economy.

How it would work for the player:
My city has purchased a weapon vendor and I have swords to sell that I made myself. Again to the two different approaches:

Individual: So for a small fee I place my swords in the vendor and set my price. There would be a time limit and the fee could increase for extra time similar to a traditional auction house. If the item sells, the money goes to me.

Group or Guild: There is no fee for a guild vendor as it functions more like a donation for the purpose of raising money for the whole. Anyone in the group can change the prices of items or it can be lead to a guild “leader”, but my sword and my friends sword will be seen as a single group of swords rather than individual items. If the items sell, the money will go into a collective “Guild Bank” as seen in many RPGs (especially WoW), to be handled and used by the guild for guild purposes.

Again a debatable topic of individual vs group.

Linked or City-Wide? (Debate Time)
Lets say my city has a weapons vendor and the next city over also has a weapons vendor. Should the inventories of the vendors be linked so I can buy from him or him from me, or should they remain locked to a city to force exploration and travel in players to visit other cities?

Linked would create a more massive auction house effect that would drive more completion, but also discourage people from “settling down” in any one place if the same products can be found anywhere. This almost entirely makes it like any traditional auction house.

City-Wide would force people to travel and increase player interaction between cities, increase city-to-city competition thus bringing groups together, but also make it more difficult to obtain player made items. This would make it less action house-like and more like a consignment shop.

In Summary
Vendors would function almost entirely like an auction house or a consignment shop depending on whether or not they are individually run versus group or guild run, then all linked together versus exclusive to each city.

The only reason I am still pushing for specified vendors is mostly only for aesthetics and to have different looks of NPCs fill the city. Also I feel this would help keep massive amounts of player made items organized and reduce the risk of some griefer filling a vendor with nothing but dirt.

I am anxious to hear some opinions, especially on the topics of individual vendors versus community vendors, then on world-linked vendors versus city-exclusive vendors.

1 Like

I just don’t like the idea of NPCs ingame. There were already discussions about it and most stuff can also be done with tables, posts or chest with the same functions.

I think pricing should stay in the hands of each player. If groups want to bind together with fixed prices for their items, they should use a guild own shop or just talk about own rules :wink:

I like the idea of a linked “shops” (or tables or what ever). It’s a nice idea. But only shops of the same player or guild should be able to bind and you should have to use special tokens for it :wink:

It’s okay if you like Ghost Towns. But the most people hate them.


Ghost towns can easily be solved by having a small amount of tier 1 worlds that everyone comes back to, thereby eliminating the need for npcs

1 Like

Perhaps this idea could couple with another I posted.

That would still mean that nearly all towns would be empty or kinda empty and that would eleminate the whole idea of traveling the world and finding new towns.

See this thread as the discussion has been made before:


In Minecraft, NPCs move around, sell random stuff, and occasionally farm. They are very difficult to get though (without creative mode). And yes, they do have a day/night mode too where they would go indoors at night.

That is entirely fair, and I do get the concept behind having npcs to add commotion and background setting, but I honestly feel we don’t know enough about the background of the game itself yet to truly grasp if NPCs are necessary.

What I mean is that we don’t know our true setting yet, and it can be one of two variants: Hero or Expedition.

The Hero setup means that there needs to be cities/towns/NPCs because you are some brave soul who is venturing the Oort, slaying Titans and Protectors in a land and bringing materials and knowledge back to your communities. In this event NPCs provide a backdrop for your character’s actions; You are becoming a Hero to a community.

The other variant is the Expedition scenario, where cities/towns/NPCs are rare if not nonexistent. In this setup you have found yourself placed on an alien world with no way back to your homeworld, and so you must venture onward to unveil the mystery of this ancient Oortian race and what happened to them whilst also trying to survive in the wilderness. In this event NPCs would be unnecessary, you are among the few (other players) who have found themselves in this situation.

@ben @james is there a more clear idea of our personal settings or is it still too early in the storyboard?


The problem is that people still are going to build houses an towns around the place and they are goign to be empty without NPC’s

I would think this would rather inspire people to build cities where players would want to congregate, thus negating the need for the NPCs. Cities can and should be a rare occurrence if you are favoring the Expedition scenario, so only having one or two, which can easily be populated with enough players, is more than enough.

Have you seen how much the community have build already? If people can they are not going to just build 1 house they are going to build a Castle, a replica of newyork and a house…

People build because they can and ghost town will appaer because not everyone can be in all the time.

as for your “specific vendors” suggestion, what if instead each vendor can only be selling one or two items at a time, and all of the items being sold are displayed above the vendor’s head.

OR you could just have the player choose a category to show over the vendor’s head in the vendor GUI

what if your NPC’s were unique characters that looked nothing like the players and more like… maybe, floating blocks with simple faces? actually that might be a little creepy…
just, you could treat vendors more like pets and less like persons.

yes, the pricing should be in the hands of the player. you should be able to set the prices for the items in your shop when you set it up.

ah, good Idea. tokens.

I believe the idea of a vendor NPC is a must. I do not think there will be tons of people wanting to be a vendor themselves, and what if you’re on when no one else is but you need an item that you can’t craft?

Like said: It don’t have to be a NPC, but also can be a sell table with posts or a kind of Automation :wink: … But yes: We definitly need such an possibility