Architect Archive
Thread: Architects Poll what are you going to do when the Vendor fix is implemented?
Folks - settle down please, this was a simple survey to see what people were doing and are intending on doing, debating the issue is not going to make it go away, irrespective of how passionate some are towards it, whether its right or wrong or not.
Now on a side note to some of the folks who consider it an exploit of the system (and to a degree it is, if you run a vendor without the necessary skills, you are exploiting that bug), I would like to ask this question.
When you create a schematic for a high rate (ie; +42) Crafting Station, during the initial construction phase you use high experimented Control Units, MMSs, GP Modules etc - either created by you or by a fellow Master Artisan. You need to do this because the schematic calls for these units to be indentical and because its considered a nice earner for the Master Artisan (and believe me, being a Master Artisan myself the high quality - >98% - are not easy to make and generally take VERY expensive resources. Now, those of you who make these and then use the schematic in a factory to mass produce these items - and who take advantage of the bug that allows you to use ANY OLD Control Units and MMSs are by the definitions subscribed to by most Merchants, and even some Architects in here - are EXPLOITING they system and depriving Master Artisans of revenue.
Now, considering that the guides on here that have been written in here showing how to factory make these high rate stations mention that this bug is available for use; are we (well those of you who make stations this way, which going by the numbers of high rate stations available on most servers, is a well known "trick") are also quilty of using a known bug to their advantage?
Now I dont subscribe to using this exploit, hence why I rarely sell crafting stations and hand make them from available components which I make as a Master Artisan - but I know many, many architects do.
So really, before anyone gets used to the idea of using the word "exploit" as a means of beating your opponent over the head, have a good long look at your own playing practices. Chances are you are quilty of taking profit from a known exploit at sometime or other (leaving vehicles out when traveling between planets ring a bell to anyone?).
Just thought I'd point this little tidbit out.
Message Edited by StumanKadir on 06-10-2004 10:14 AM
Astev_Aris wrote:
I don't see any grey issues here at all. It's not a question of right/wrong/moral code/yada/yada. It's just an exploit. Period.
I guess the next step is to work on defining an exploit. For example who decides whether something is an "exploit"? The players or the devs? If the devs decide that it's an exploit, then clearly it is. If a group of players decides this, then unless this group of players convinces the devs or gains some special "exploit defining" power, I find myself unconvinced that there is any ethical problem.
It'sbeen pointed out many times here before that no other profession offers the same wondrous effect of being able to maintain your skillset after dropping said profession, and neither should Merchant.
No profession other than creature handler allows you the wondrous ability to tame graul maulers. Professions are different, and all have different design parameters.
We're not enamored with merchant skills, we simply see them as neccessary to operate effectively. If you want the same skillset, then pay for it.
I agree they're necessary for sure. In my opinion I paid for it when I mastered. The merchant profession is what it is. It's weird, I agree there. Lets come up with other ideas for improving it.
LonelyGhost wrote:
I cant believe people are still arguing if using vendors after you have dropped the skill is okay. The Devs have made themselves 100% crystal clear on the issue. Move on already!
Cool. What'd they say? Did they call it an "exploit"? Got a link?
So drop merchant.
GenChaos wrote:
I think the true issue here is that people who keep their vendors and drop the skills, have an unfair advantage over those that keep their merchant skills. Why should I, as a master Architect, Master Weaponsmith, Master Artisan and Novice Merchant have to compete with someone else who is Master Architect, Master WS, Master Artisan, Novice DE who has all the vendors that a master merchant would be entitled to? Why should they be able to produce another line of items that I can't and yet they can continue to have as many vendors as me?
StumanKadir wrote:
...When you create a schematic for a high rate (ie; +42) Crafting Station, during the initial construction phase you use high experimented Control Units, MMSs, GP Modules etc - either created by you or by a fellow Master Artisan. You need to do this because the schematic calls for these units to be indentical and because its considered a nice earner for the Master Artisan (and believe me, being a Master Artisan myself the high quality - >98% - are not easy to make and generally take VERY expensive resources. Now, those of you who make these and then use the schematic in a factory to mass produce these items - and who take advantage of the bug that allows you to use ANY OLD Control Units and MMSs are by the definitions subscribed to by most Merchants, and even some Architects in here - are EXPLOITING they system and depriving Master Artisans of revenue.
Now, considering that the guides on here that have been written in here (and Pawlin, I hate to say it but I do seem to recall you mentioning this "nice trick" a few times in some posts) showing how to factory make these high rate stations mention that this bug is available for use; are we (well those of you who make stations this way, which going by the numbers of high rate stations available on most servers, is a well known "trick") are also quilty of using a known bug to their advantage?
...
Got a link? I don't recall raising this "trick" in any guides that I've written. It certainly shouldn't be in my FAQ. I consider it an exploit and I've been careful not to bring up the topic cause it just gives more peole the idea... and I don't want that. I certainly don't do it myself. If someone else brought it up I might join the topic and discuss it but I've NEVER recommended it. I repeat I consider an exploit. Pure and simple. Its another case of gettin something for free in opposition to how it should obviously work. (note I'm explicitly saying that this is my opinion.)
I think your point was that we all may be guilty of an exploit either knowlingly or not. I agree in principle that is quite possible. I don't think using an exploit makes you a bad person and a lot of the time it is certainly up to interpretation. ... Unless I decide its wrong. ... in my opinion of course. 
Ok Pawlin, we ARE going to keep talking? Ok that's good 
I'll answer your comments then. My answers are in Pink. My original statements are yellow (sorry getting messy)
Pawlin wrote:
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.
We agree your question is loaded. If you define right for me i could answer. If you ask me, "right according to your moral code". Then I believe it's right. But I don't think we need to be moral here. Either the devs call it an exploit or not.
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.
Ok. I'll take a further step. Until the devs say its an exploit, I consider it morally fine. If they've said this, I'd like to know.
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.
Calling something names isn'tan argument/debate. It's just name calling.
Pawlin wrote:
I think your point was that we all may be guilty of an exploit either knowlingly or not. I agree in principle that is quite possible. I don't think using an exploit makes you a bad person and a lot of the time it is certainly up to interpretation. ... Unless I decide its wrong. ... in my opinion of course.
Baccarat wrote:
The alternative voice is just a defense of an exploit. An exploit that you freely admit to doing yourself.
Calling something names isn'tan argument/debate. It's just name calling.
Exploit = taking advantage of a bug or design flaw.
I consider it an obvious design flaw that you get free vendors after dropping merchant skills. Apparently we disagree on this.
I base my conclusion that its an exploit because people take advantage of it and I feel it is a design flaw.
Yes I think thats the underlying difference in opinion. I think its a design flaw and I guess you don't see it as such.
Astev_Aris wrote:
I think the fact that this ability is being eliminated is a pretty unambiguous hint as to how the devs view it.
Crystals as damage causing saber components are being removed. Does that mean we should immediately cease using them as such?
No profession other than creature handler allows you the wondrous ability to tame graul maulers. Professions are different, and all have different design parameters.
But you have to KEEP your CH skills to do this. Merchant is the only profession that allows you to drop the skills but retain the benefits.
Maybe my analogy was confusing. All I'm saying is every profession is different. Whether or not you think it's "right" is one thing.
Then I should be able to master any other profession, claim that "I've paid for it" and drop the profession while still being able to take advantage of sills and benefits offered only by that profession. Why is that disparity so hard forso many peopleto accept?
This analogy makes no sense. Just because one profession is one way, doesn't mean that all professions "should" be a particular way.
And they are improving it. They're removing this most egregious and unfair side-effect.
Well lets hope they're following this thread, because there's a lot of good thought material here. I don't like this word "unfair", because nobody forces you to stay merchant.
Pawlin wrote:
I can only speak for my personal opinion. (duh)
Glad this is clear. I just didn't want people to think that this was some kind of "accepted and known" thing.
I think its an exploit. An obvious one.
Ok I disagree (as you pointed out).
I don't think exploiting = evil.
Yay! So you don't think i'm evil, that's good.
I don't really care if they do the nerf or not. I don't think it will make a big difference.
I guess people will deal. Just seems like an obnoxious (and scary) change to me. Everyone panicking and clearing their vendors doesn't seem like a happy situation to me.
Any exploit is open to interpretation until SOE tells us what their verdict is. We cant/don't know if something is intended or not untill they say for sure. Some seem more obvious than others but thats always up to interpretation.
Woohoo! Yay!
/salute Pawlin
Baccarat wrote:
Then I should be able to master any other profession, claim that "I've paid for it" and drop the profession while still being able to take advantage of sills and benefits offered only by that profession. Why is that disparity so hard forso many peopleto accept?
This analogy makes no sense. Just because one profession is one way, doesn't mean that all professions "should" be a particular way.