Development Cycle Archive
Thread: ID#2: Two Changes to Bazaars and Vendors
Darkcrest wrote:
I have to disagree at least let containers hold some thats how I sell my lrg special orders when I cant be online
I do that with my special orders also, but if it would deflect the vendor item limit, I'll gladly forfeit that right.
![Iron City, Corellia [Gorath]](http://www.jedisanctum.com/swgpics/IronCity1300x1300.png){kind=link}
Thunderheart,
Once again the devs have gone and done their own thing after asking for our opinion. Do you guys forget that it is our subcription fees that give you the opportunity to ignore us?
90 pages of responses, most of them either negative, or at least with a variation of what you are proposing, and what do you do???
YOU GO AND DO IT ANYWAY!!!
I have come to the conclusion that our opinion isn't what you really want. You just want to validate what you are doing, as long as you get some kind of response from us.
Instead of wastiing time on this board, what would happen if you had a poll? Hmmm, wouldn't want to do that because then you would have actual percentage data on the reaction to one of your proposed "fixes".
90 pages of responses, assuredly not pored over by your staff, and yousay..."Well..we got a favorable reaction from this proposed change..." Have you even read the responses?
Next time you propose a change like this...state your case, and create a poll. That way, the next time you put a change through against overwhelming opposition, the rest of us will know that you are just fooling yourself, and not us...the people who pay to play.
You are not worthy of your handle..."Covers_ears_and_goes_blah_blah_blah" is more like it.
Remember as with all games, the interest wanes, and dies. Don't make it your sole effort to kill it on your own before it's time.
CenoKreFey wrote:
Darkcrest wrote:
I have to disagree at least let containers hold some thats how I sell my lrg special orders when I cant be online
I do that with my special orders also, but if it would deflect the vendor item limit, I'll gladly forfeit that right.
Just make it so that the container counts against the total vendor limit. That way we can still offer the items for the special order, but we have to live with the restriction. If you have a very large order, you will either have to sell it in two passes (or on two vendors), or hand deliver it. For large orders like that, I would prefer to hand deliver it anyway.
- Resource Sales: Allow us to place large stacks of resources on vendors and set a CPU price and the customer would simply select how much they want and only be charged for that amount as the vendor splits the stack automatically. This would then leave the rest of the stack on the vendor for others to purchase. This could seriously reduce the item database size if you think about all the resource vendors around.
- Crate Sales: Allow us to determine that a crate may be split for sales and allow a CPI (Credits Per Item) price be charged. Just like resources a crate is treated as 1 item and is only split when needed.
With these simple changes the 150 item limit on vendors would not be a big problem, and it can reduce the item database drastically.
- Travin
OK, I've heard that the reason for this change is because there are way too many items floating around, and it drags down the database.... but i don't think vendor caps will really solve the issue.
I think that getting rid of all the junk might be a more appropriate solution. Supposedly junk dealers will start accepting more items. That might be a start. Another idea might be to allow salvaging of materialfrom old items. Either by junk dealers or perhaps an artisan player skill. Keep it low, maybe 15-20% of the steel would be salvagable from an old CDEFweapon.... but with all the junk that could add up. This could also apply to things like clothes and armor. Whether it's looted junk, or worn out pieces.
And keep it simple... have a new class of material like "Salvaged Steel" and "Salvaged Fiberplast" so it could all stack... wouldn't be great quality, but it's better than a floor full of useless vidscreens and circuit boards!
Sure, you can destroy those items, and a lot of people do... but on the other hand, I've been in plenty of houses wherethere's loot lying all over the place... some people feel like it's wasted to simply destroy it. If you give them an incentive, maybe we could get things cleaned up a bit.
Just an idea.........
Well ill be screwed.
Iam a master Architect. If they limit my items ill lose several million the first day.I will not have enough room to hold allI have. I keep around 500 to 700 items onmy vendor. Not to mention my house is full and so is my factory.. How do they expect me to work like this. Truthfully if they do this ill probably cancel my acct. Im tired of fighting and if i have to struggle to craft......
I don't spend much attention to the Bazaar honestly as I have enough to do keeping my vendors stocked.
In that vein, I would be VERY upset if a vendor cap was instituted. Much akin to why the weaponsmiths and armorsmiths are getting irritated at this suggestion.
I am a Master Doctor / Master Combat Medic. In all, there are150 separate items I can make. If I make *1* of each thing, I am at cap. And I ASSURE you,1 itemis GONE before I have time to even blink, esp when you are talking about enhance packs, wound Bs, crates of stims, etc.
Indene wrote:
NJ62 wrote:
What bears repeating is that the vendor limit will penalize those merchants who "play by the rules" while nothing has been discussed which would take away vendors from those players who have given up all merchanting skills. The fact is that a lot of stress on the database is from vendors that should not legitimately exist anymore. It seems unfair to target all vendors in order to relieve stress on the database rather than first targeting vendors that are retained by players that have dropped all merchant skills, vendors which should not even exist.
You know I have seen this complaint a lot. That some evil crafter is 'exploiting' the system by having a vendor. So silly me I went back and read the definition of the skill they gave up. The skill is ***Placing*** a vendor. Well last time I checked they could not *Place* a vendor after they give up the skill. So their ownership and use of a vendor is * PERFECTLY LEGITIMATE* so give that issue a rest. If you want to ask for a 'nerf' of the ownership of vendors then do so. Just remember the 'nerf' bat is very non-discriminating.
-Indene-
I'm with you.
If you take the time to master Merchant and place your vendors, you should keep 'em.
If you drop merchant, you lose the ability to place vendors. So if "$PLAYER's Guns Vendor" is sold out becase $PLAYER went Armorsmith, then $PLAYER is stuck with either selling armor on a "Guns" vendor (not likely anyone browsing is going to look), or they can remaster enough Merchant to destroy the Guns vendor and replace it with a new vendor labeled "$PLAYER's Armor Vendor".
Empty vendors from players who dropped Merchant are a credit sink in an inflationary economy that desperately needs credit sinks.
Full vendors from players who dropped Merchant vanishing into thin air when the Great Merchant Roleplayers' Vendor Nerf goes into effect are game-breakers for people who stock items like $180K heavy harvesters and $300K bricks of resource and lead to subscriber loss.
Vendor caps - Not A Good Idea, but an understandable one
Bazaar at $6K - Great Idea, get more stuff into a more liquid market
Vendor Removal after dropping Master Merchant - Teh Sux.