Business And Economy Archive
Thread: Cross Server lot trading
GraySeven
Mon Feb 21, 2005 9:09 am
#144
Diorchas wrote:
Here's the thing...
Some people enjoy playing this game by running a big business. If you want to cripple their ability to do that, then you have no legs to stand on. All you're doing then is trying to ruin someone else's gaming experience.
However, I don't think that's what you're doing. Mainly because, if I'm reading you properly, your main beef comes with the "unfair advantage" static lots provide to the "big business" people.
To that I can only say this: What game are you playing?
Static lots pull grind quality materials. Period. Unless their owner gets VERY lucky and has something good spawn under them. The odds of that are about as good as someone shooting a shotgun against a wall and the pattern that emerges looks like a smiley face. It just doesn't happen. Or, rather, when it does you simply shrug your shoulders and say "wow, that's some good luck you had there, mate. Congrats".
Let's dig a little deeper here... You talk about it hindering competition for you as a small crafter, yet talk about having ten harvs (one of which is a BER 20 Fusion) working for you. Which means one of three things. Either you have others working for you (which exposes you for a hypocrite for damning others), you have multiple accounts (which gives you an advantage over those poor folks with only one account... you devil) or you have no housing for storage (which I sincerely doubt since, as a crafter, it'd be prohibitively difficult to run a business out of your safety deposit box in the bank). So which is it? Spin the wheel of hypocrisy and see where it lands for us, would you?
The fact of the matter is that static lots are JUST BARELY worth the effort. The product they provide does not hinder small crafters for the simple fact that no crafter in his right mind would build finished products (with, perhaps, the exception of the Architect... and frankly they need all the help they can get) with the resources that you pull from static lots. The people that benefit from those resources are... drum roll please... BEGINNING, small timecrafters who need grind resources. Let me repeat that, because it's a salient point.
The people that benefit most from static lot trades are the people you are claiming are hurt most by it.
For a resource manager to hurt your business, master-of-five-professions, under your argument they would have to use those static lots to pull high-quality resources. That just doesn't happen. Period.
I have 16 static harvesters through cross-server trades. And to be honest with you, every time I put money/power into them I wonder to myself whether they're worth the expense. Those things are a money sink, not a gold mine.
EDIT: BTW, couple other things while I'm still in full dander...
There is no 1000% percent markup. Leaving aside for a moment that you're not considering the overhead expenses of a resource manager, in order for there to be a 1000% markup on a new (read:spawning) resource would mean that you'd have to sell it for somewhere in the area of 7-10cpu. If you can find a resource manager who is trying to sell a spawning resource for 7cpu point him at me so I can laugh at him. I have yet to see a crafter buy an in-spawn resource for anything more than 5cpu, and that price was for a very rare, very good spawn.
If, on the other hand, you're talking about the markup for older, rarer, despawned resources maybe you should read up on supply and demand. It doesn't matter how much money it took to pull the resources once the spawn is gone. Then all that matters is who wants it, how much of it there is on the server, how much you have and how good it is. Once the resource stops spawning it is a commodity and as such your price is dictated by fair market value.
Also, your view of why artisans don't "mine their own resources" is skewed. While I have no doubt that your take on it is true for some, the fact is that most crafters who don't mine their own stuff don't do it because they hate the process. Because they would rather focus on what they enjoy (i.e. crafting). I, and other resource managers, provide a service. We don't simply offer crafters the resources they need, we offer them the freedom to play the game in a way that they most enjoy.
For the record, I have never once had a crafter complain about my resource prices. Never once. I am fair and honest in my business dealings and I think all of my customers would say the same. In fact, they're often grateful for the service I provide.
Finally, let me make one last observation. Your argument sounds an awful lot to me like you're bemoaning the fact that a mom and pop store can't compete with Wal-Mart. Of course they can't. But in this game you have a choice about how you want to run your business. If you choose the mom and pop route then you make your money by providing personal service and cultivating your consumer base. People will come back to you if their experience with you is a pleasant one. Especially if you're providing top-quality products (which you can, easily, regardless of the Wal-Mart down the street).
As a mom and pop you're catering to a different clientele. One that favours the person behind the desk that knows their name and asks how the wife and kids are. You can't hope to compete with high-volume businesses for sheer earning power. If that bothers you then ask yourself what game you want to play. If you want to remain small time, then accept the limitations (and benefits) of running a small time business. It's your choice. But it's the same choice you must offer others as well, if you're being fair. Me, I enjoy cultivating my clientele. I'm a mom and pop that services the Wal-Marts of the server... I just do it in bulk. That's fun for me.
Pick what is fun for you and stop whining that others don't see it your way. Nobody's hurting you. You can't have it both ways, so choose which one you want to be and be the best at it you can. Stop trying to ruin other people's enjoyment of the game.
Message Edited by Diorchas on 02-21-2005 05:54 AM
Some good points. One, I am a devil as I have 2 accounts. As the only crafter in my group of friends, I couldn't go out gun bunnying with them so I got a second. However, I am not taking advantage of their lots, which would give me an additional 30 or so, so I'd consider myself a minor devil at most.
I've never had any problem with trading for lots with ACTIVE players on a server. I couldn't imagine Guilds being able to function without the ability for multiple people to admin the lots, which is why I've been an advocate of requiring redeeding versus limiting admin rights as most cross server people wouldn't want to have to keep coming back again and again to pickup and replace the harvesters for a new resource.
If they are "barely worth the effort" then loosing them wouldn't be such a problem, but the truth is that the people cross-server trading are so rabid about keeping the ability that I have no other option but to believe that they ARE worth the effort. Otherwise people wouldn't care what happens to them.
I understand supply and demand. I don't know about your server, but if I do a resource search (which I do from time to time) to pick up quality resouces that I can't get to due to lot limitations or spawn location, quality resouces are going for 7 to 10 cpu EVEN IN SPAWN. If I've got my math correct, it takes around .35 and .65 cpu to pull a resource from the ground, meaning that a resource mark up to 3.5 cpu to 6.5 cpu is a 1000% mark up...
As far as against these so called "wal-marts"...no, I'm all for them as long as you don't twist the rules to do so. I have no problem with large scale operations. Heck, I'm all for the Galactic Bazaar which most people seem to think will benefit the large scale operations over the small scale ones. I'm not against your playing style, as long as it does not impugne on the gameplay of others through twisting the system (I'd say exploiting, but as the Dev's haven't stepped up yet to let us know "the truth" on the subject, I can't).
Diorchas
Mon Feb 21, 2005 10:11 am
#145
Couple things here I'd like to address.
Just so we're clear, the "devil" comment was in jest. Perhaps I should've used "scoundrel", but I think you understand it wasn't an attack. Or, I suppose more fairly, it WAS a mild attack but not one that was out of place for the tone of the post.
Now that we're done with the salad, on to the meat...
I find myself a little confused by your argument now. YOu say you have nothing against people using the lots of other active characters, yet such trades are potentially FAR more damaging to you as a small business crafter than static lots are. When I say "far more damaging" I'm talking exponentially here, so I'm really wondering where your argument is going.
I'm forced to conclude, then, that your real problem with cross-server lot trades isn't really that they damage your business. That's just the clothing you put on it to make your crusade seem more righteous. Big guy picking on the little guy always gets people to rally around the underdog, right?
But no... since it's not about that it must, then, be about your own personal disagreement with the "cheating". Am I right? It has less to do with the actual game than it does with your moral indignation that people are "cheating."
The problem here is that no one is cheating. The devs have never said an official word about this and they certainly have to know it's going on. Now that may be because they have bigger things on their plate, I'll grant you. But you need to consider as well that the reason the devs have said nothing is... brace yourself...
They don't think it's a big deal.
Now I know how that must grate on your sensibilities, but think about it for a second. They limited portable lots in a pretty efficient way. When you talk about the Coruscant-esque overdevelopment of planets in beta you're also talking about PORTABLE lots being the culprit. The devs, in response, limited portable lots. Clean... efficient.
Yet you say that not limiting static lot trades would result in the same overdevelopment. Umm... ok. Where is it then? I mean, static lot trades have been going on since shortly after launch. Surely Corellia must be looking like New Coruscant. Surely Naboo should be a sprawling megalopolis by now... But they're not. Which means that your argument should grab a butterknife and commit sepukku on the spot for dishonouring you so.
All kidding aside, though, you're being a Cassandra. Static lot trades have not ruined the economy. Static lot trades have not resulted in every buildable planet turning into Coruscant (though I will readily admit that the cause of this is probably because of what I mentioned earlier. Namely that static lot trades are really not all that useful). Static lot trades have not gutted small business or made big business disgustingly rich solely upon their backs. Such trades are merely an improvised tool, and a marginally effective one at that.
Now, I'll close with an expression of sorrow for you. I'm truly sorry that you have resource managers who charge the prices you quote. That's not something I can get behind. But by the same token, crafters have to support that commodity economy else the resource managers would get laughed out of town, so to speak. If the crafters are willing to pay those rates it must mean one of a few things. One, that there are too few resources managers (low supply = high demand). Two, that the combat profs are willing to pay exhorbitantly high prices for their goods (else the crafters couldn't make a profit). Three, that there is some serious and debilitating collusion between resource managers (though I doubt this). Four, that the economy on your server is highly inflated due to an overabundance of combat profs, since the basis for all credits (until the arrival of JtL) injected into the system are ground combat missions.
I feel bad for you, but with the solo group nerf the system will correct itself eventually.
Ackew
Mon Feb 21, 2005 11:31 am
#146
Actually garry i have done nothing BUT prove you wrong in EVERY post you have made in this thread. The 1cpu cost I said was for STATIC harvs which as you said you have NEVER used so as USUAL your don't have a CLUE what your talking about.
Why would the devs allow harvs with such a HIGH ber for just ONE day it makes NO sense but then you never do.
Based on what you said in your post timed and dated 28-01-05 at 9:54PM I worked out you had 4 harvs or are you as usual lieing about that too.
You want some facts and figures well here you are All stats are based on a heavy harv (ber13) and power purchased at 2cpu. All prices have been rounded to 3 places. These prices DO NOT include ANY cost for the time and effort needed to tend the harvs which depending on where and how many you have they are can easery add anything up to 0.5 cpu or more
At 25% a static harv will get 4680 resources a day and will cost 5760 credits a day this results in a cost of 1.23 cpu
At 30% a static harv will get 5616 resources a day This results in a cost of 1.026 cpu
At 35% a static harv will get 6522 resources a day. This results in a cost of 0.88 cpu
At 40% a static harv will get 7488 resources a day. This results in a cost of 0.77 cpu
At 45% a static harv will get 8424 resources a day. This results in a cost of 0.68 cpu
At 50% a static harv will get 9360 resources a day This results in a cost of 0.62 cpu
At 60% a static harv will get 11232 resources a day This results in a cost of 0.52 cpu
50% is generaly the best you get but sometimes you get up to 60% and VERY rarely do you get better. I have had some statics outside my home town since september last year and have had ONE AND ONLY ONE nice resource spawn under it. At anything thats makes it worth while anyway had some others but at such low sub 10% harvest rate that it was not worth geting them. the rest of the time its been crap resources and low harvsest amouts. For the last month or so its been 30% and for the last week about 25. Like i have ALL WAYS said statics are used for ONE THING AND ONE THING ONLY. Geting GRIND resources. And thier not much good at that either. If you want to get good resources you NEED moveable harvs.
Message Edited by Ackew on 02-21-2005 06:35 PM
Ackew
Mon Feb 21, 2005 1:16 pm
#147
sorry hit enter too soon see below
Message Edited by Ackew on 02-21-2005 08:40 AM
Ackew
Mon Feb 21, 2005 1:39 pm
#148
Give it a rest garry NOONE cares WHAT you think theyNEVER have and NEVER will. But we finaly see your AN explotier like i KNEW you where. Useing a Ber20 harv give YOU an unfair advantage over others. And its not something everyone can do like lot tradeingSo why don't YOU stop useing it.
If as you say your HAVE mastered 5 crafting profs which i doubt. You can't of had many if any sales sales if you ALLWAYS had more resources then you needed with your 10 hars. Supprising how each time you post now it goes up. 1st it was 4 then 8 and now 10. I'm pretty sure your a lot trader to but you just useing this a front so you can argue.
Isee your talking BS as usual about resources prices. The costs to get them using statics is about 1cpu and while i can't say about your server i know no grind rsources which is what 99% of people get 95% of the time from statics are priced at any more that 2pcu or maybe 3 if its ore. But i guess you must still be refering to those magical harvs which got 42 million resources in a week. Now if as you wanted we got rid of all the static lots then yesI CAN see grind resources going for 10cpu as very few if any one would bother to mine then as they would be to busy geting all the resources they need from them selfs. You seem to forget them people still need grind resources to grind for FS xp and new players who join so they can master. Aslo Arch and tailor only realy need grind resources since quality does'nt matter to them.
If as a master shipwright you don't need resoruces thats onlycause your NOT selling anything. I wonder why. Good shipwrights like my self need a CONSTANT supply of resources since we HAVE sales. Unlike you. Shiprights need FAR more resources than ANY other profession.
galadore
Mon Feb 21, 2005 2:11 pm
#149
There is only one way to get rid of lot trading. One character per paid account. Period. Nothing else is a viable option. How else can they monitor this? The abilities to grant administrative rights to harvs and buildings is required along with the abilities to create guilds. Lot sharing within a guild uses the same tools as lot trading. Those tools are needed, so lot trading is allowed...
I agree thatlot tradescan get reduculous in multiple account instances (met someone yesterday with 8 accounts=lots of lottrades=450+ harvs), but SOE loves multiple accounts because of the additional expenses for the extra chars and accounts. They won't allowthis to end...
And driving prices down doesn't hurt the game. It allows players with less money to obtain everyday items and resources... What really hurts the ecomony is the trade forums, but that is a separate issue...
Ackew
Mon Feb 21, 2005 2:16 pm
#150
I see your still talking BS as usual garry but then i would expect NOITHING less as you have NEVER proved a SINGLE thing i have EVER said to be WRONG. All you do is avoid the subject or accuse people of being an explotier whens its YOU who are in fact the explotier. Maybe its power IS 1.2 cpu on YOUR server garry but i would'nt belive you unless i saw it for my self.but 2cpu is usualy price on mine if you buy in small quanties. If you buy in LARGE quanites you can get it for 1.5 or less. Once again your have missed the POINT statics are used to get GRIND resources. Ones that ARE low in quality, ONES people would NOT USE moveable harvs to bet but are STILL needed by quite a few people. The stats are for a SINGLE harv most lot swapers have MANY harvs at least 50 to 100. So if you what you might not make in small amounts you make up for in volume.
BTW if as you say they will MAKEING NO difference to the resourceswhy MUST we get rid of them. I'm sure you said they where RUINING the resources market. Yet another LIE you have been caught in.
your the waste of time garry. Why i bother replying to you i don't know. maybes its the faint hope that maybe one day you might see sense. But now i know you as thick as abrick wall andtwice as dense. carry on thinking what you like I really don't give adamm. Have fun in your fantasy land.
Diorchas
Mon Feb 21, 2005 2:50 pm
#151
With respect, if it's not hurting you, other players or the economy, then it really just boils down to your inability to get past the idea that it's cheating.
You talk about wanting loopholes closed for "balance" and so that "this game can reach the potential it's capable of" but having static harvesters neither imbalances the game nor holds the game back from reaching its potential.
Still and all, you're entitled to your opinion. I just would rather see the rhetoric about helping the game shorn from it. However you clothe your argument it's ultimately about your moral indignation about perceived cheating. And it IS only perceived. If the devs said it was cheating then you could make that argument. But they have said nothing. Regardless of the reason for their silence, silence it is.
You talk about wanting loopholes closed for "balance" and so that "this game can reach the potential it's capable of" but having static harvesters neither imbalances the game nor holds the game back from reaching its potential.
Still and all, you're entitled to your opinion. I just would rather see the rhetoric about helping the game shorn from it. However you clothe your argument it's ultimately about your moral indignation about perceived cheating. And it IS only perceived. If the devs said it was cheating then you could make that argument. But they have said nothing. Regardless of the reason for their silence, silence it is.
GraySeven
Mon Feb 21, 2005 3:22 pm
#152
Diorchas wrote:
With respect, if it's not hurting you, other players or the economy, then it really just boils down to your inability to get past the idea that it's cheating.
You talk about wanting loopholes closed for "balance" and so that "this game can reach the potential it's capable of" but having static harvesters neither imbalances the game nor holds the game back from reaching its potential.
Still and all, you're entitled to your opinion. I just would rather see the rhetoric about helping the game shorn from it. However you clothe your argument it's ultimately about your moral indignation about perceived cheating. And it IS only perceived. If the devs said it was cheating then you could make that argument. But they have said nothing. Regardless of the reason for their silence, silence it is.
By this logic, I should also not be indignant against credit dupers, item dupers, 3rd party program users and other cheats if it has no effect on me. Working around the intended game design, no matter how big or small, is still creating an unfair advantage (cheating ). Sure the Dev's haven't commented, but its still not an intended feature of this game or they would have never limited lots to 10 per character. Surely even *name withheld* can see that. What if, because of the cross-server trades, the Dev's decided against increasing lot sizes for characters from 10 to, say, 15 lots? Would you say then that this issue is creating a problem for everyone? Its something we might never get an answer to, but it is something to think about.
And I'm going to break my vow just this once to thank Ackew. For someone who doesn't care, he sure is spending the time to go back and one star EVERY SINGLE POST I'VE EVER MADE. You don't know how happy it makes me that I've ticked you off so much that you are willing to fight the constant "too many searches" messages just to one star me...and you yourself complained about one-star ninja's and here you are becoming their Master and Lord...hillarious. I'm glad I and my opinion matter that much to you.
GraySeven
Mon Feb 21, 2005 6:30 pm
#153
And at this point it boils down to matter of opinion, mine being that simply that no cheat is too minor to fix and yours being that if it were a cheat it would have already been addressed.
It comes down to nothing more than how individuals view the world. I don't know your nationality, but I believe we all have the right to express and promote our own opinions regardless of government view.
But, I've seen the Dev's refuse to answer bigger problems right up to the point they get fixed, so I don't hold out any hope for some foresight into this issue until and if its ever addressed. We may never know.
GraySeven
Tue Feb 22, 2005 1:04 am
#154
Ackew, since you've proven nothing but your ignorance in post after post, and still can't type a constructive post, this will be the last time I address you.
Go to the Architect boards and do a search for High BER harvesters and you will find a few posts about the high (20+) BER Fusions and the 14 BER Heavy Harvesters. If you're the static spawn godling you seem to think you are, you should know all about this one day "event".
That time and date does me no good. At that time and date I may have only had 4 harvesters dropped of one type or another, but I still don't know why you ASSUME I could only drop 4 harvesters...(EDIT Went back and looked, but the only post I found was another where I both admitted to 2 accounts and used 10 lots for harvesters. Clicky the post you're talking about)
I havetwo problems with your "statistics"...
- 2 cpu for Fusion? Being as I normally see it sold for around 1.2 cpu, you're getting ripped or padding your stats...I'm betting on the latter, especially since I have a hard time imagining you not having your own fusions dropped in order to reduce overhead for those "lean" low percentage times...
- If you aren't pulling enough resources from the ground to "make it worth it" why are you so dead set against losing big harvesting farms? By your own stats, they are so inefficient that losing them will not impact the resouce market IN ANY WAY.
All your statistics prove are that there is no need for large static farms created through cross server lot trades, since the resources they bring to the market are A) Of typically low quality and B) Of typically low amounts. Even if you use them to harvest for personal use, you are doing yourself more harm than good because of the time and money being sunk into the inefficient pit of your static harvesters.
You have yet to show any reason why cross-server trading needs to stay or that static harvesters are neccessary for a normal and balanced economy. Since you are a waste of my time, I wash my hands of you. You are the weakest link...Goodbye
Message Edited by GraySeven on 02-21-2005 03:08 PM
Ackew
Tue Feb 22, 2005 2:28 am
#155
As USUAL garry yourtalking BS. I would'nt waste my time and energy to go and 1 star all 1310 post of your posts pointless as they maybe. I just checked and not all of your posts have 1 stars so as USUAL yourLIEING. oh and another thing i'm really not for or against lot swaps. What I AM AGAINST is that thier an exploit and cheating. I used them as i have said MANY MANY times to get grind resouces and i have a few factories on them. I don't complain about 1 stars since the rateing system is pointless much like you and now I'm trying to get a 1 star overall rateing just to show how uesless (like you)it really is. So please carry on 1 staring me garry i know it makes you happy. You and your opion mean very little to me but its fun to tie you up logical knots and show what a hyporcrite you are. If they wanted to limit lots to 10 per accountwhey did they let use have characters on DIFFERENT servers. IF your clever enough and good enough at programing to write something like this I'm sure they could see that people WOULD do lot swaps. If they REALLY wanted to limit it 10 harvs FULL STOP. They would of said only 1 character PER ACCOUNT. The only exception being the alt you get when you make jedi.
GraySeven wrote:
Diorchas wrote:
With respect, if it's not hurting you, other players or the economy, then it really just boils down to your inability to get past the idea that it's cheating.
You talk about wanting loopholes closed for "balance" and so that "this game can reach the potential it's capable of" but having static harvesters neither imbalances the game nor holds the game back from reaching its potential.
Still and all, you're entitled to your opinion. I just would rather see the rhetoric about helping the game shorn from it. However you clothe your argument it's ultimately about your moral indignation about perceived cheating. And it IS only perceived. If the devs said it was cheating then you could make that argument. But they have said nothing. Regardless of the reason for their silence, silence it is.
By this logic, I should also not be indignant against credit dupers, item dupers, 3rd party program users and other cheats if it has no effect on me. Working around the intended game design, no matter how big or small, is still creating an unfair advantage (cheating ). Sure the Dev's haven't commented, but its still not an intended feature of this game or they would have never limited lots to 10 per character. Surely even *name withheld* can see that. What if, because of the cross-server trades, the Dev's decided against increasing lot sizes for characters from 10 to, say, 15 lots? Would you say then that this issue is creating a problem for everyone? Its something we might never get an answer to, but it is something to think about.
And I'm going to break my vow just this once to thank Ackew. For someone who doesn't care, he sure is spending the time to go back and one star EVERY SINGLE POST I'VE EVER MADE. You don't know how happy it makes me that I've ticked you off so much that you are willing to fight the constant "too many searches" messages just to one star me...and you yourself complained about one-star ninja's and here you are becoming their Master and Lord...hillarious. I'm glad I and my opinion matter that much to you.
Diorchas
Tue Feb 22, 2005 3:19 pm
#156
GraySeven wrote:And at this point it boils down to matter of opinion, mine being that simply that no cheat is too minor to fix and yours being that if it were a cheat it would have already been addressed.It comes down to nothing more than how individuals view the world. I don't know your nationality, but I believe we all have the right to express and promote our own opinions regardless of government view.But, I've seen the Dev's refuse to answer bigger problems right up to the point they get fixed, so I don't hold out any hope for some foresight into this issue until and if its ever addressed. We may never know.
But yet again you are starting with a faulty premise! You say that no cheat is too minor to fix, yet cross server lot trading has never been defined as cheating. You're using circular reasoning. You're saying it should it defined as cheating because it is cheating. My point is that it is not you who defines what is cheating. It is the devs. And they have had ample opportunity to define cross-server trades as cheating.
So get off the high horse, man. You are not staking the moral high ground here. You're just making yourself look like a self-righteous prig. Until the time that the devs state definitively whether such things are cheating, seeking to impose your own definition on it is ridiculous.
Message Edited by Diorchas on 02-22-2005 02:21 PM