sellophane

Truthfully I'm not interested in discussing this in Discord. I feel I've sufficiently laid out my thoughts on your initial suggestion, and my general thoughts on how scripts should interact with free form role-play.

Just respond to AIR's posts, you'll save yourself a headache.

This just sounds like pure script-based incentive to again rail road businesses into role-playing a certain way. Additionally, if I'm understanding you, this would be against the rules according to rule 16: "You may not trade back any of the money received from the script to the buyer. Example: Advertising 10% off on weapons in your ammunation, and give back 10% using 50% of the money you received in your business when the player bought the weapon."

You haven't really described what could be done with the script "to allow businesses to offer different packages and prices". What do you have in mind in this regard?

Exactly, this man gets it. You can't expect (or force) players to role-play something they have no interest in. Unless the role-play is fueled by the script in an open-ended way then any script suggestion is bad, and a detriment to the server. Stop trying to make people play the game the way you want it played.

Of course they should.

What are you trying to say here? Your suggestion of forcing businesses to operate a certain way with scripts is bad.

Honestly a better suggestion is to require businesses to have an employee on duty to receive components. This would provide you with scheduling, and service quality in the way of timely deliveries like you seem to think rail roading people with scripts would.

Which is commendable and something I completely support. What I don't support are short-sighted script solutions that don't actually promote role-play past the initial use of the command being proposed.

You should just let your brother respond.

I don't think you're fully comprehending what I'm saying. There are no schedules, and there are no demands other than the script-wise need for components man. Business owners can request components whenever they'd like currently, and then log off. No one needs to be online for a driver to deliver anything. There is no need for scheduling anything if components can be delivered whenever a driver decides to deliver them. You're just posting esoteric phrases about "service" and "demands" without verbalizing what that actually entails. Like I said, there are no demands other than a business requesting components. It's fire and forget. Now, if you're changing your suggestion and saying there needs to be other changes along the lines of requiring employees to be online for deliveries and similar things then I think there's more worth here. Your original solution of "force businesses to only interact with one delivery company" does nothing to solve these problems though.

Because there would be nothing company A can offer over company B in regards to role-play quality. Nothing forces a business to have an employee on duty to receive any shipments so why would they worry about scheduling? Nothing forces an employee to sign a bill of lading so again, why worry about scheduling? There's nothing that affects products being damaged in shipping resulting in non-delivered products so why care about who drives the truck and how well they do it? What demand does a business in-game right now have other than simply getting script deliveries? They have no need for quality interaction with a driver because they don't even need to be there to interact with the person. Again, you're suggest a very narrow script change to solve a much larger problem.

Your proposal does nothing to demand any of this though. Railroading businesses into signing with a single trucking company doesn't force them to interact with drivers. It doesn't force any scheduling to be determined. The script as it is doesn't support any of this, and your proposal doesn't solve those problems. The script needs work but if people aren't role-playing these realistic scenarios now, they aren't going to be more likely to role-play them just because they've been forced to only interact with one other group and run one command.

What does this entail? You keep saying it but you haven't provided any examples as to what you have in mind. There isn't much interaction between a driver and a business as it is right now so if you intend for "better service" to mean better role-play, what does that role-play look like? Does it just involve the initial signing of a trucking contract between trucking company and business? If you don't mean better role-play when you say "better service" I'm curious to know what you do mean.

Looking great!