Architect Archive
Thread: Architects Poll what are you going to do when the Vendor fix is implemented?
Pawlin wrote:
Do you think it is right to have the benefits of a skill after you no longer have the skill?
Can you answer that question? Its just takes a simple "yes" or "no".
Jeez take it easy... I tried to answer last night but the forums were down.
Your question is loaded and based on some assumptions.
The word "right" implies some kind of moral code. I don't think it's "right" or "wrong", just one variation of design. Do I think a game where all masters work like this would be tenable? Probably not, though it might be an interesting experiment. I can't tell you what's "right" or "wrong". I can tell you what my opinion on the subject is. You can tell me if you agree.
I think right now (and you might agree), that merchant tends to be an support profession. You yourself said you don't consider yourself a merchant. I am of the opinion that the status quo is ok, I wouldn't mind merchant being a support profession. However I am sympathetic (not sure why) to the people who keep master merchant and want it to mean something. I am all for giving people who keep merchant some cool advantages (reduced maintenance isn't that bad actually, but we probably need something more). I do however know that there are many many crafters who have dropped merchant, and have structured their whole game around having done that. Are they right or wrong? No, they made a choice to design their character a particular way. Do I think they should have to radically alter their game in order to survive losing their vendors? It's my opinion that that would be unnecessarily harsh.
What do the devs think? I don't have an inside line, but my guess (based on what they say) is that they are open minded. If that's the case, I submit my opinion to them and you for consideration.
Baccarat wrote:
Pawlin wrote:
Do you think it is right to have the benefits of a skill after you no longer have the skill?
Can you answer that question? Its just takes a simple "yes" or "no".
Jeez take it easy... I tried to answer last night but the forums were down.
Your question is loaded and based on some assumptions.
The word "right" implies some kind of moral code. I don't think it's "right" or "wrong", just one variation of design. Do I think a game where all masters work like this would be tenable? Probably not, though it might be an interesting experiment. I can't tell you what's "right" or "wrong". I can tell you what my opinion on the subject is. You can tell me if you agree.
LOL, nice dodge. You should run for political office... /clap /clap /clap.
Yes I was asking a loaded question, intentionally so. You could answer yes that its ok but htat would be obvious nonsense. Or you could answer no that its not ok and that would point out the underlying problem with your stance on this topic that you're taking advantage of something that is free and should not be. You won't agree or admit it cause you would just admit you are wrong and you don't want to cause you want to keep the free thing. Thats it, in my honest opinion. Thats what my point is pure and simple... using vendors after dropping merchant skills is an obvious exploit. Period. Feel free to disagree but don't expect to convince me otherwise.
Don't bother to continue to try and debate it with me.
Pawlin wrote:
(answers in yellow)
LOL, nice dodge. You should run for political office... /clap /clap /clap.
A loaded question is one for which the options for answering are nonsense. For example:
Do you hate Architects or Merchants?
The question is stupid, because you might not hate anyone. I think your question was similarly misleading.
Yes I was asking a loaded question, intentionally so. You could answer yes that its ok but htat would be obvious nonsense.
"Obvious nonsense"? I guess answering yes would mean i was advocating a rather strange game system. Ok I agree there.
Or you could answer no that its not ok and that would point out the underlying problem with your stance on this topic that you're taking advantage of something that is free and should not be.
There you go again with the "should". Should based on what? The Holy Book of the Devs? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and we'll say you meant "should, according to my opinion".
You won't agree or admit it cause you would just admit you are wrong and you don't want to cause you want to keep the free thing.
I won't admit I'm wrong? I'm not wrong
Do I want to keep the "free" thing? Sure I do. I don't think it's free at any rate (I did master at some point). Am I an evil spawn of darkness for wanting this? No I just have an opinion that is shared by quite a few crafters of all varieties.
Thats it, in my honest opinion. Thats what my point is pure and simple... using vendors after dropping merchant skills is an obvious exploit.
Ok I think you got your point across that you consider that an exploit. I don't think there's anything obvious about it. There are countless things in the game which might seem odd, which you could call exploits too. That's a long discussion that would take ages. If the devs make an announcement that doing the vendor thing is exploiting, that's another matter. They did say double slicing was an exploit and punishable. Good thing too (in my opinion).
Period. Feel free to disagree but don't expect to convince me otherwise.
Oh well. I'm doubtful that I could change your mind. But I am trying to create an alternative voice in this forum to those that promote the view that this is an "exploit".
Don't bother to continue to try and debate it with me.
Ok I'll talk with everyone else then
Baccarat wrote:
Jeez take it easy... I tried to answer last night but the forums were down.
Your question is loaded and based on some assumptions.
The word "right" implies some kind of moral code. I don't think it's "right" or "wrong", just one variation of design. Do I think a game where all masters work like this would be tenable? Probably not, though it might be an interesting experiment. I can't tell you what's "right" or "wrong". I can tell you what my opinion on the subject is. You can tell me if you agree.
LOL, nice dodge. You should run for political office... /clap /clap /clap.
Yes I was asking a loaded question, intentionally so. You could answer yes that its ok but htat would be obvious nonsense. Or you could answer no that its not ok and that would point out the underlying problem with your stance on this topic that you're taking advantage of something that is free and should not be. You won't agree or admit it cause you would just admit you are wrong and you don't want to cause you want to keep the free thing. Thats it, in my honest opinion. Thats what my point is pure and simple... using vendors after dropping merchant skills is an obvious exploit. Period. Feel free to disagree but don't expect to convince me otherwise.
Don't bother to continue to try and debate it with me.
Oh, and I hate to tell you guys this: you all don't get to call "exploit". The devs do. Until they do, it's speculation and opinion (otherwise known as "grey area").
You may be vindicated someday for your beliefs, but this ain't the day.
man I wish i could quote. Pawlin - you're equally adept with political positioning. That's as much of an compliment as you orginally intended it to be, nothing more.
But since we want to get very technical along with moral and spiritual:
the last i checked people were banned for exploits. no one has been banned for this. my guess is that no one has even a blemish on their record for this. i believe this creates a scism in the basis of your argument.
what SHOULD happen - is that they create a better system for all, not some. and in this game, this is one of the few cases where things are a little more obvious.
where i do agree with you is that i think i'm done debating too - time to go home and play.
Aucob wrote:
Oh, and I hate to tell you guys this: you all don't get to call "exploit". The devs do. Until they do, it's speculation and opinion (otherwise known as "grey area").
You may be vindicated someday for your beliefs, but this ain't the day.
God it's been forever since I've seen you on Aucob. You get a freaking jedi or something?
Fivo Asia
(my latest responses in green/blue)
Baccarat wrote:
Pawlin wrote:
LOL, nice dodge. You should run for political office... /clap /clap /clap.
A loaded question is one for which the options for answering are nonsense. For example:
Do you hate Architects or Merchants?
The question is stupid, because you might not hate anyone. I think your question was similarly misleading.
Faulty analogy. I'm asking yes or no.. is it right or wrong to get those vendors for free without having the skills. Your analogy is asking no or no.
...
Or you could answer no that its not ok and that would point out the underlying problem with your stance on this topic that you're taking advantage of something that is free and should not be.
There you go again with the "should". Should based on what? The Holy Book of the Devs? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and we'll say you meant "should, according to my opinion".
Yes, my opinion. Of course. I can't speak to anything else and there is no implication otherwise.
You won't agree or admit it cause you would just admit you are wrong and you don't want to cause you want to keep the free thing.
I won't admit I'm wrong? I'm not wrong
Exploiters don't often admit what they are doing is wrong. Their actions are usually already rationalized to themselves. Thats all you've done is excuse it away by saying its not wrong or right and that its just gray and that its ok cause the game lets you do it.
Thats it, in my honest opinion. Thats what my point is pure and simple... using vendors after dropping merchant skills is an obvious exploit.
Ok I think you got your point across that you consider that an exploit. I don't think there's anything obvious about it. There are countless things in the game which might seem odd, which you could call exploits too. That's a long discussion that would take ages. If the devs make an announcement that doing the vendor thing is exploiting, that's another matter. They did say double slicing was an exploit and punishable. Good thing too (in my opinion).
Period. Feel free to disagree but don't expect to convince me otherwise.
Oh well. I'm doubtful that I could change your mind. But I am trying to create an alternative voice in this forum to those that promote the view that this is an "exploit".
The alternative voice is just a defense of an exploit. An exploit that you freely admit to doing yourself.
LOL thats such a bogus argument. Free market doesn't mean free vendors. People pointing out that you shouldn't get vendors for free is an exploit doesn't mean we're evil robber barons. Nice way to defend an exploit by pointing a finger of accuasation at anyone but the exploiters.
Errr, I will disagree with you here. Free market is based oneasy access and the widest availability to the marketplace, to let compitition and supply and demand to balance everything out. The stance that you are advocating isin direct conflict with this. It is a pure and simple power grab, and a desire to restrict the market from non- artisan based crafters. Calling the arguement bogus does not discredit the arguement.
Another question that I really don't know,is have the devs stated that the vendors are not working as designed? If what you call an "exploit" were viewed by the devs as such, I think they would have taken action. Since they have not, I submit that they do not consider it an "exploit" therefor you labeling it as such is "bogus".
Do you really believe that the devs intended that Doctors, Combat medics, Smugglers, Rangers, etc spend 24 POINTS for a box vendor???
YES. Just like they expect us to spend at least 15 points in order to be able to survey for mineral resources. Benefits from skills are paid for by expenditure of skill points.
Well that's something that only the devs can answer in the end. The arguement of 15 pts to be able to survey for resources is untrue in the context of this arguement, where we are all architects. As other Archy's have pointed out, it is possible to succeed while buying the minerals, so if they do not wish to spend the 2pts required (or just plop harvesters near others or static) I don't see that as restricting the economy as such. For Docs and the like, as I have observed, most of them either buy resources or have friends find spawn.
The merchant class has been broken since launch, and IMO should be eliminated.
Thats an altogether different argument. If thats your opinion then ok.
They should eliminate the ability for a non-crafter to use a schematic, as that is a bigger exploit in my opinion. How many of you have dropped master artisan, then bought a schematic of MSS for your stations???
Bad analogy. Key word in that sentence is "bought". The artisan doesn't have to sell it and there is a value in the trade of schematics. And schematics have a limited lifetime as well. Not a good analogy.
As to be able to use a skill/ability without the required profession, you have heard of skill tapes right? By your definition, using a skill tape without the profession is an exploit. That's just BS.
Worse analogy. A skill tape is an item with value that you own. Its property. Skill tapes only benefit skills that you already have. A structure experimentation skill tape won't let someone make architect items unless they have architect skills.
mottola2u wrote:
the last i checked people were banned for exploits. no one has been banned for this. my guess is that no one has even a blemish on their record for this. i believe this creates a scism in the basis of your argument.
Not true. The devs pointed out that leaving your vehicle out when using transports is an exploit but they intended to fix it and not ban anyone for it. The devs only ban people for exploits they consider game breaking, if the exploit isn't game breaking, they try to deal with it quietly and move on.
mottola2u wrote:
man I wish i could quote. Pawlin - you're equally adept with political positioning. That's as much of an compliment as you orginally intended it to be, nothing more.
/wink
But since we want to get very technical along with moral and spiritual:
the last i checked people were banned for exploits. no one has been banned for this. my guess is that no one has even a blemish on their record for this. i believe this creates a scism in the basis of your argument.
This I will disagree with (surprise). Exploit is taking advantage of a bug or design flaw. It is not defined by people being banned for it. If an exploit is too widespread and/or seen as relatively benign then SOE certainly won't ban a ton of people. Also I think SOE knows full well that they caused this to happen themselves by not designing it better from the start and then not fixing it sooner. So they really wouldn't be at all fair in banning people for doing it.
And I'll say this now so people realize.I don't think this exploit is evil or anything. I don't mean to be that harsh about it. Not at all.
what SHOULD happen - is that they create a better system for all, not some. and in this game, this is one of the few cases where things are a little more obvious.
where i do agree with you is that i think i'm done debating too - time to go home and play.
Did I say I was done? /grin
My responses in yellow.
Rurry wrote:
Ibelieve you are wrong sir, it is a perfect analogy. A vendor is property, I pay for it just like a building - with maintenance. And skill tapes most certainly DO work if you do not have the skill. I did not spend skill points for terrain negotiation, but with some cash I can get the same benefits.....With structure experimentation tapes I can build the highest BER harvesters with ONE row of archy and save 42pts.....
Yes, but you still need some architect skills. People want to be able to be able to drop even business III yet still host vendors, that's not the same as the example you stated above.
I believe that vendors should be easily available for placement in ones own buildings, as for other buildings (malls, etc) that should be the focus for merchants.
They are... Business III isn't hard to get. And your argument that this is a "power grab" is most amusing.Actually, I thinkyou CH's aretrying to restrict the market from non-CH based animal handlers... What a power grab! Why can't I control my Rancor despite the fact that I don't have the skills to control it? Unfair, unfair!
