This is just a load of bull's imo... i will give a nice example."Looting rules work fine...[in context of 'no dry loot'] , but in the long run its going to kill the market."
We have person A - who is going to be a victim, and we have person B who wants to become a robber.
Both needed some equipment in the beginning so A and B bought some crap armor and got some random things.
B feels like he needs better armor and items, so instead of BUYing a new from the market he decides to rob A.
Doing so, B instead of BUYing the armor he wanted, forces A to buy that armor instead of him.
A spent all money again for new armor and things, while B kept his money and got a new armor + items.
B after 5, 10, 50 robberies doesn't need anything at all from merchants anymore since he robs up everything he could possibly need for the next 10 years in advance. Doing so B is completely severed from the market as he makes A buy from the market instead of him, thus giving the illusion of sale boosts. But what B does actually, is stockpiling shit for the next 10 years of gameplay, which B could already do if he bought from the market directly in the first place.
Mind you that the sale boost is fictive, since merchants can stockpile products for sale for the next 10 years already now, and sell them when the market demands it. What B did is just to guarantee he won't need any merchant item again in his life, while A was working his ass off.
scenario A) Robbers damage the market:
After some time B, not only has all the equip he could possibly need, but he gets filthy rich in items, possibly starting to sell stuff back to the market and getting cash for items - doing so ruining other merchant's sales. There comes a deflation, since the previous boost was artificially produced.
scenario B) Robbers effect the market positively:
With the exception (as Maximillian commented) if robbers trashed all the items (which is not legal).
scenario C) Robbers do not effect the market:
Robbers do not effect the market in the long run whatsoever, it just gives the illusion of it as Robbers force other people to work for them - while others buy, robbers don't need to as they stockpile shitloads... or get pwned by Law and Law gets fat, ty B and A kind of ^^ (then Law doesn't need to buy either for years to come, very vicious cycle, or Law just returns to A what is found to be of that person if possible - so it returns to its rightful owner who already has some other armor [stockpile again]).
I believe the mix of scenario A and C is what really happens, and sincerely don't think that the lack of robbers/drylooting is what is making the market stagnant. Point being made.
This were my 2 euros about market.
Now to get back on topic... I'm not a priori against robbers robbing or dry looting rules, mind you. I think robbers are great RP opportunity, adrenaline rush and pvp fun in general.
I even have some own ideas about looting rules and didn't see any similar suggestion yet, but want to think a bit more about it before sharing.
________
Ovinnik
