Ratjoy.com » Forums » Suggestions, Technical Support and Feedback » Contracts Sticky
You need to register or login to post a reply.
Contracts Sticky
|
Nin Sandhu RJ: Raskilinov CO: Raskilinov Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 32 Karma: 13 Joined: Apr 23, 2012 |
Posted on Feb 25, 2013 Scott & Mods, I am intending to create a post called "Contract Offers" to formalise contracts on offer for player:player completion. Can you allow this post to be a sticky, or advise if I need to bump it periodically? Intentions: To create forum post for formal contract offers for products. To allow players to document specifications of products requested, durations and any incentive/bonus schemes. Example: Link: http://www.ratjoy.com/forum/topic/wtb-steel/ Time of post: 25/Feb @ 8.54AM By documenting contracts on the forums it allows: Stakeholders to be transparent during the process, Ease the burden on mods for future disputes or litigations, Allow stakeholder feedback and Aid other players when setting/accepting contract offers. Mods, does this sound like a favourable idea and if not can you advise on alternate available action? Regards Raskilinov |
|
Brent Goode RJ: BB Goode CO: BB Goode Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 506 Karma: 180 Joined: Apr 5, 2012 |
Posted on Feb 25, 2013 Since there is no formal "contracting" feature available, and given that there is a section for purchase requests, I fail to full realize what you wish to accomplish. "Contracts" are as much a matter of timing as anything else. And a buyer always has the option of not buying something of of the B2B if the price is not right. It seems that would obliterate any need to litigate a "contract."I admire your zeal, but I must be missing something here. |
|
Nin Sandhu RJ: Raskilinov CO: Raskilinov Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 32 Karma: 13 Joined: Apr 23, 2012 |
Posted on Feb 25, 2013 Looking back contracts is probably not the right term. Its probably closer to "Procurement".In some respects I have pinched from Leeroy's* post: Player Quests. So the procurement process would be: - Put the contract offer out, - Receive tenders from the players based on the contract offer, - Choose the closest fit (allow some negotiation), - Post agreed offer onto forum. Q - How does this differ from purchasing directly off B2B? A - It provides opportunities for players to source bespoke goods at reasonable and agreed prices. B2B is more about buying instantly from the market. Sure you can try to circumvent this by directly contacting suppliers or posting requests on the forums (which is akin to producing a service spec). Nonetheless with B2B your choices (most of the time) are limited to what's on offer. Yes I take on board that you can still choose not to buy from B2B if the price isn't right, however surely you must concede that prices for many products are often factors above manufactured costs. Example - Steel I know that I can produce it in-house at ~$15 per unit, however B2B has an average cost of $400-$500 per unit. Which is just extraordinary! I (and probably others - irrespective of product) are at the mercy of current manufacturers and their prices. Sure there will be the odd time when someone provides it lower, but that behaviour isn't the norm. And this is the crux of the matter. In part its to attempt to begin some changes in current B2B practices and to reduce the incidence at which players are left at the mercy of price-setters. Key Reasons For Through a procurement exercise/contract sticky (whatever label you wish to use) you can provide players with a mechanism to: - Dictate a service spec, - Suggest a reasonable** price to pay, - And if necessary add an agreed incentive scheme. Other Reasons For + Should a contract be agreed: - It allows transparency between players for expected goods on delivery. - Should a dispute occur allow the aggrieved party to claw back reasonable damages - dependent on agreed dispute/termination rules. - Provide feedback to other players to good/bad performance for future contract/player quest etc. Reasons Against - Admin step for mods - Possible cause for confusion between product requests and contract/procurement forum posts. Will require clarity, via an introduction to set out roles, responsibilities and expected outcomes. - [insert here] Footnotes * Leeroy posted an interesting suggestion regarding "Player Quest". The customer posts a quest (i.e. a service spec) and other players can fulfil those for quick payment. I have begun to incorporate this idea into my response. **It moves the pricing power closer to something more reasonable for a buyer as opposed stumping for, currently, unreasonably high prices. I am wary of using emotive language here, and have tried to avoid where possible. |
|
Brent Goode RJ: BB Goode CO: BB Goode Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 506 Karma: 180 Joined: Apr 5, 2012 |
Posted on Feb 25, 2013 That was beautifully demonstrated and elegantly posted. This is essentially how players have always "contracted" with each other. The problem is that the only way to execute the trade in question is through the B2B, with seller and buyer logged in at the same time, and sending the "contract" through the B2B, hoping no bots or inadvertent purchasers are looking around right then to interfere with the trade. It seems to me that what you are really advocating is a genuine "contract" mechanism, which would certainly benefit from its own thread. But I know from past conversations that Scott is reluctant to go there as he feels it would erode the B2B significantly. He is probably right. It would certainly lead to trade cliques, and require extra AI coding to monitor those trades for cheating. However, this has been done successfully elsewhere, so I don't know that it couldn't be done here as well. Cliques form anyway. They come and go with the generations of new players. The B2B, in my view, would take care of itself as long as there is a significant numbers of active players combined with a reasonably competitive Import/Export market. the pricing problem you illustrate is not new, but it does move around based on various dynamics, including player population. I think that Scott's idea of limiting factory plots will aggravate that situation even more, unless the Import market is made much more competitive. However, there are those that would tell you that a truer cost analysis would put a product like steel at a much higher true cost-of-goods than the $15 your factory says you spent. Maintenance and Salaries for that unit of steel are never figured into the game's cost-of-goods. Those costs can be quite high for certain products. Finally, I, for one, find your post delightfully thoughtful. Thank you for that. |
|
Hajji Pajji RJ: Trade Merchant CO: VonDutch Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 194 Karma: 8 Joined: Oct 21, 2012 |
Posted on Feb 26, 2013 Agreed with Goode, nicely put and a good idea. Also agree with Goode, if more people used the B2B (more active players) the negative side of contracts might be solved by themselves |
You need to register or login to post a reply.