There's this thing that any meaningful trade happens between players, not between players and NPCs. People are rarely using merchants in guarded towns
I think this is far far away from truth, especially with the new mechanics after wipe. Anyway you can't base this on any facts. The fact is, that players are trying to trade with NPCs all the time and they often find out that someone was faster. You ever tried? I can just say, that almost every time I'm visiting a NPC merchant (and I don't mean in NCR) I see like 10+ players who are trading or trying to trade just in the time between my start and end of trade interaction.
- why would they go trading to, say, Broken Hills? It could happen only if the North was just as safe as the South, but please refer to Kilgore's post if you want to get into that.
Well, the probably won't go to BH for trading now, but you're now mixing action and reaction. You can as well browse this topic and you will find at least one player, who did write that he came to BH for trading with NPC.
And no, my intention was not to make something more or less safe. My intention was to make it more real like and give factions who want to let all players participate in town economy (this is the opposite of what you advocate here) some motivation, which should lay in loot containers. That means give them a choice, which have some real consequences other than saying "we are gooders" on forum. You're just advocating one gaming style and I'm advocating no gaming style, I'm just advocating the fact that people should have choices and different benefits from them. You really think this could be called carebearish? Or should be rather called carebearish when you want to tell people that only your gaming style should be the most profitable?
Oh, and generally speaking, saying that the South is more alive than the North is just utter bullshit. I mean yeah, there's a lot of people there standing around while doing absolutely nothing. Doesn't seem too attractive to me, and honestly - it's bound to get old very fast if your brain activity exceeds that exhibited by a piece of rock.
I don't think the opposite on this one.
Anyway we're moving to offtopic now.
And even if as you say nobody comes to Broken Hills for trading with NPCs, that will only mean, that the faction who let them enter and move freely will gain nothing, because no trade occurs. :p) So this is really irrelevant point. If you believe in what you're trying to say here, you should be really glad or at least neutral about it, because my suggestion will bring the gooders no profit and you will still get all the shiny loot from players (and they not). But I don't believe this would be the case if changes will be made.
EDIT: Anyway, if having the town dangerous/ not safe is right of the controlling faction and this controlling faction benefits from it, I don't see why some other controlling faction shouldn't have right to make the town "almost safe" (cause North towns never gonna be really safe and you know that) and also has adequate benefits from it. I mean why should be making town unsafe more good to town itself (especially it's economy.. and letting loot containers depend on it.. cause these items are not likely to be created from the blood of victims) than making it "almost safe"? Dude just be fair and say, that if you kill everyone and loot it it's your right and nobody is denying it, but you also have to accept, that making almost every player able to use the town freely through town control should no way have lesser benefits and could no way be described as a worse gaming style, which should only cost you. This is totally in accordance with your feudal lords concept. There really wasn't only one type of feudal lords in history. And also: in long time line your concept of squeezing and fights for squeezing brings probably only decay (this one is probable especially in fallout canon, as you can see from the in-game). So in concept as it is now the Broken Hills could be as well totally dead after few years of only squeezing and fights for squeezing.
