Contract System

Good afternoon,

i feel this suggestion can go either way with the player base but ill put it out there any way. 

I would like to suggest adding a "Contract System" to Torn that will diversify player interactions further. we have seen and will continue to see changes to what has been pretty consistent game play and i feel this will add value to player to player relations

the contract system would follow something similar  to what you would see in Eve, only modified to fit the mechanics here in Torn.

players can go to DUKE and initiate a contract, that will be posted for players to fulfill. this can be services such as:

• seeking specific item for x price
• seeking loan with specific collateral/interest
• buying selling points between players
• flight delays bought sold
• company boosts bought sold
• buy sell requests for rw weapons/ caches other high ticket items (cant see special bonuses in trade menu, this would be a way to verify what you are buying before accepting
• other mechanics up to popular opinion

with this implementation we can also ad consequences for certain accepted but unfulfilled contracts. for example, failure to pay back loans would result in the negligent player being added to Dukes mission list for x amount of days or x amount of new missions generated. 

players can openly post on a contract board these contracts, and it would be open to the public to accept, or set directly between players similar to trades. 

there is probably more we can do with this but i think this would be a welcomed implementation to Torn assuming the General Public agree. 

So, missions?

What would be the difference between this and missions, aside from the public aspect of accepting a contract?

so you want a convoluted way to eliminate the risk of scams? 

no, another way to trade higher ticket items, set up loans or post contracts/trades for public fulfillment. i think the difference here is "Public Fulfillment" rather than private only. 

to answer your question, no. this isn't a "Avoid Scams, scams bad" suggestion. scam away. this is rather an addition to player interaction that might go well with the removal of bazaars and other changes ched is making. keep an open mind. if there is a way to scam scammers will scam. 

So basically adding into the game stuff that now has to be handled by external discords for commissions and is only accessible to certain type of player (the type that comes across/looks for these discords)

Good suggestion, better way to "modernize" Torn then everything Ched has been doing recently (I'm not being critical this time) so I don't see why this shouldn't be added, it fits with Ched's intentions for the game as far as I can tell.

It also effectively rolls back the idiotic removal of points trading.

Great idea. Basically creates a market for all torn related services, something that should have already existed, but doesn't and likely won't because ...

that is the idea. alot of services are solicited outside of Torn. this can be used in quite a variety of ways and create another way for players to interact in ways that make it Torn. Mug, Scam, honest transactions, make player to player loans etc. 

consider how well this will work with the removal of bazaars (Something we know ched wants to do). 

essentially yeah, 

This would be a fairly massive feature to implement, practically speaking I don't think it's the kind of suggestion that gets put on the roadmap, at least as things are now. So I'd take any discussion on this as very pie in the sky and not likely to actually affect anything.

It seems like a great idea, but I have to note this nagging feeling I have: that it's part of Torn's charm for the actual game to have little support for complex p2p transactions, with players having to construct their own infrastructure. I can't well support it with arguments though.You wouldn't even necessarily lose any of the flexibility and player innovation by adding what you propose.

Thinking on it a bit more though, most of the things you list have emerged organically as popular services to offer / buy. If contracts had instead been part of game development from the start, are you sure the devs would have naturally settled on the same design? My suspicion is the game play meta would look a bit different right now if that had been the case.

Another somewhat related argument against it: building the infrastructure for these services is part of the fun. If somehow all possible p2p transactions you could dream of were perfectly streamlined and integrated into game mechanics, you might find there is in fact less game left to play.