Ruin Rewards

[Klampe]

One major problem with selling items would be that players would sell all their gear when out played, stuck inside a city vs. a stronger or better organized enemy player. Often I go for heroes rather than cities etc, cause items are more valuable than cities in many cases. Making it possible for people to sell them when stuck in tricky situations would be a very bad decision. Like a besieged city being able to sell all it's production instead of razing. It's not fair.
Player 1 (who should get +) gets nothing if not a - for wasting time and effort
Player 2 (who should get -) gets +

[KGB]

Klampe,

So what if a player wants to sell all his items or destroy his production or raze his cities. It's their choice to do so. These types of tactics are well known in war (think of Saddam Hussein setting all the Kuwait oil fields on fire when he knew the war was clearly lost). It's can also be a smart thing to do as it may force another player to leave you alone rather than waste time trying to get your last city or two.

Besides how are you going to decide what's fair in terms of someone selling an item. If you can sell a +3 defense item for 250 gold and that gives you enough gold to increase the city walls of your last city by +5 that's a good trade off because it increases your overall defense. In the same way such a player may decide to sell all his attacking items for gold knowing he won't be attacking anytime soon (if ever) and hope to get another hero offer with needed allies.

KGB

[Klampe]

Yeah, I'm just saying that that's the case. Saddam had to set fire to the oil fields, cause no magic aliens who bought oil at any time when he called for them, with no administration from his side, existed. In the same way, no magic aliens exist that flies into besieged cities and buys artifacts at any given moment. I don't like the idea.
Sure to raze a production. That's one thing. I was talking about Selling a production. "Oh, someone will take this RD-production next turn, I'll think I'll sell it for 750:- g instead". No hard choice. Not gaining money from razing cities either. Then few cities would be taken ever.
I believe all these functions (selling productions, selling cities, selling artifacts) would mostly be used in ways that makes successful tactics less important, both for defender (who can rely on selling his artifacts) and attacker (who don't even get what he deserves).

Sure to be able to sell somewhere, but not in any city at any time.

Klampe,

So what if a player wants to sell all his items or destroy his production or raze his cities. It's their choice to do so. These types of tactics are well known in war (think of Saddam Hussein setting all the Kuwait oil fields on fire when he knew the war was clearly lost). It's can also be a smart thing to do as it may force another player to leave you alone rather than waste time trying to get your last city or two.

Besides how are you going to decide what's fair in terms of someone selling an item. If you can sell a +3 defense item for 250 gold and that gives you enough gold to increase the city walls of your last city by +5 that's a good trade off because it increases your overall defense. In the same way such a player may decide to sell all his attacking items for gold knowing he won't be attacking anytime soon (if ever) and hope to get another hero offer with needed allies.

KGB

[KGB]

I believe all these functions (selling productions, selling cities, selling artifacts) would mostly be used in ways that makes successful tactics less important, both for defender (who can rely on selling his artifacts) and attacker (who don't even get what he deserves).

No one is asking for the ability to sell production or sell cities. I don't see that feature ever happening because as you noted, it makes no sense. self razing production and self razing cities already takes care of those features.

But I think selling items will eventually be added. Making players go to a special spot on the map (a new building) or restricting it to a certain time is going to overly complicate this feature and it won't get used making it useless. It has to be reasonably easy to sell items (Players should not have to go out of their way and waste several turns to do it. It should not require a special building which would force map makers to add them to a map and balance them for all sides etc). That's why a city (or any temple) is pretty much going to be the only place to sell items. Cities make the most sense because they would have merchants with money that could afford to buy such items.

As for the attacker, if he wants the items before they are sold he better kill the enemy hero before he reaches a city or before he sells his items. In either case he gets what he deserves.

KGB

[magian]

I think Klampe makes some good points here. Selling an item when you are about to lose it to another player just seems cheesy to me. I really enjoy killing other heroes and looting their corpses, and am firmly against any mechanic that robs me of that pleasure.

A location on the map that sells and buys items (merchant) would be fine by me. But, a limited location like that doesn't add a whole lot to the game IMO... unless mercenaries or hero training could also be purchased there.

[KGB]

Magian,

I think Klampe makes some good points here. Selling an item when you are about to lose it to another player just seems cheesy to me. I really enjoy killing other heroes and looting their corpses, and am firmly against any mechanic that robs me of that pleasure.

If that's the case then selling items no matter how it happens is going to rob you of that pleasure. So you are either for selling items or against it. There can be no middle ground here in terms of picking how it happens.

A location on the map that sells and buys items (merchant) would be fine by me. But, a limited location like that doesn't add a whole lot to the game IMO... unless mercenaries or hero training could also be purchased there.

I'm really against a new map location for this. Because of the added complexity to the game rules in terms of learning what this new location does (including a Wiki page). Plus it needs graphics and an update to the map maker. Then map makers have to update every map to place some number of these locations and balance them out for game play for 2-8 player combinations on their particular map etc. That's a huge amount of work for everyone involved versus the much simpler 'sell in cities' concept that requires just a sell item button to be added to cities along with a menu.

I do however think that 'selling items' could easily be added as a game option when creating the game (like Fog of War is). So if you don't want to allow selling items you simply turn it off. DLR had 'selling items' as a game option.

KGB

[magian]

If that's the case then selling items no matter how it happens is going to rob you of that pleasure. So you are either for selling items or against it. There can be no middle ground here in terms of picking how it happens.

I absolutely disagree. Selling items at designated special locations sounds like it would require some forethought. While being able to sell items at any city could be used as an instant reaction to a threat. The latter, reactionary use of Item selling is what I have a problem with. I also don't think you should be able to 'raze' or destroy items. If you could just smash magical artifacts, then what was the whole point of the LoTR trilogy? Frodo should just have nailed the ring with a hammer, end of story.

[Klampe]

I believe that one solution to think of besides selling locations would be implementing a sell-function similar to vectoring. You push "sell item" and then it takes 1-4 turns for a "merchant" to pick it up, leaving money behind. Turns are decided by the artifact. 1 turn for lvl1s, 3 turns for any other artifact. 1 turn for level1's because money is needed asap in early game and a crap defense item should be changed for gold asap.
Artifacts would still be functional until the merchant arrives. Player would not have to wait inside a city for the merchant. Terrain does not affect how fast the merchant arrives unless hero is either on magma, water or mountains, where merchant takes 1+ turn to arrive.
After clicking "sell", it can't be changed. That would take the vectoring aspect away, with people always clicking "changed my mind" when it's one turn left, and then click "sell", so that the "merchant" is always on his way.
When it's "sold" (waiting for merhant) it can't be put on the ground. Only change place between backpack and artifact slot.
If it's taken by another player or dropped on the ground (hero died in a ruin, by hostile units etc), deal is automatically broken, nothing happens to the artifact. No penalty added.

This, I believe would be a good solution. No clumsy moves and then "ah well, I'll just sell those artifacts" and no brilliant moves rewarded with a "damn it, he sold all his artifacts to some magic aliens who got there in 0 turns". This would keep it simple, no need to rethink or rebalance maps, just a function that exists and can be used in the same way by any player at any given moment.

[Klampe]

Maybe first 3 turns would give more money for artifacts, effectively making up for one player finding 3 def helm when another gets 600 gold?

[KGB]

Magian,

I absolutely disagree. Selling items at designated special locations sounds like it would require some forethought.

But this still allows the cheese factor of selling items to deny them to an opponent. Where exactly do you suppose these designated areas are going to be placed? Right next to cities is where I bet 90% of them end up. Otherwise NO ONE is going to travel even 1 turn to sell an item for 200-300 gold. The loss of 2 turns (1 there, 1 back) isn't worth 200-300 gold. This is why virtually no one travels 2 turns (1 there, 1 back) to get a +2 movement bless because it's not worth it.

Plus this special location doesn't address maps that are old or don't get updated and so we are back to the problem of players needing to sell items they acquire early in a game and can't use or don't want. That's a real problem now, too many items in ruins leaving some players with lots of gold while others get lots of items that have no early-mid game value.

While being able to sell items at any city could be used as an instant reaction to a threat. The latter, reactionary use of Item selling is what I have a problem with.

You *really* think this is going to be a big issue? It can only happen in a city. You'll only even remotely consider it if you think you are VERY likely to be killed by an enemy hero (because non-hero stacks can't use the item) AND you can't kill that hero very soon afterwards to get your item back. How many times does that happen in a game? If I lose 1 hero a game in a defensive city battle I'd be surprised. Most of mine are lost between cities or attempting to capture an enemy city and most of those don't have any items. In other words, I think it's much ado about nothing compared to how many games I get useless items I need to sell in a *convenient* manner.

I also don't think you should be able to 'raze' or destroy items. If you could just smash magical artifacts, then what was the whole point of the LoTR trilogy? Frodo should just have nailed the ring with a hammer, end of story.

Agreed. I don't think anyone ever asked to raze/destroy an item especially since they are all artifacts like Saurons Ring. On the other hand, I think if your hero is killed over open water (excluding rivers) and the player whose turn it is does not pick up the item by the end of his turn that the item should be 'lost at sea' and returned to the unused items list and made available for ruin respawn.

Klampe,

3 turns isn't long enough. I've seen many games where the first 4-5 ruins I open in the first 15 turns are all items, most of which I can't use. I may not want any of them.

If selling at a later time is that big a deal I'd much rather ruins that contain items simply offered a choice of the item (with no gold) or gold and you picked on the spot. If the player didn't pick the item it can then be placed in a respawned ruin.

KGB