Droid Engineer Archive
Thread: To DEs with thriving businesses
In fact I'm not even sure it's a good idea to move them to engineering 4.
But hearing that MA is not a requirment for DE and just usefull is something I cannot accept.
In fact, explicitly write down that MA is a requirment for DE and really showing the skill point needed to be a DE would be a better solution IMHO.
And people, including DEV would realise that what we have compared to the skill point cost is not balanced.
But I'm like the BH, I don't want the skill point requirement to be lowered, I want my profession to worth the cost.
And it is far from the truth right now.
TheRealTK421 wrote:MA is not a "necessity". Helpful...most definitely. An out and out requirement? Not at all. Along with that, the Devs have stated in the past they we could expect interdependence among professions to go up. Now we may know more what they meant.
TK, that is not what was said. I disagree with virtually every point you have made in this thread, but those are matters of opinion - this one is simply not true, and I've heard you say it so many times in the recent past I have remind you of the facts.
Way back last fall, when the issue of extreme DE dependence of MA the Dev team specificly stated that they were aware of our over-reliance, and that no other profession had the burdon. We were told that either ours would go DOWN, or every other professions would go up - it had nothing in the world to do with vendor limits. I don't see any other profession going up in component interdependence.
They have continually ignored the issue since then (when it was originally acknowledged as a problem last fall). This has nothing to do with vendors or merchant, it has to do with the fact that component-wise the droids I make take more MA parts than Droid Parts (counting the EMM's and EGP's inside brains, etc.).
For awhile you have defended this, and attempted to make it sound "Not that bad", and I just don't understand why. Do you enjoy being the only crafting profession in this position? Are you acting on behalf of the Devs who have put these words in your mouth? I really don't understand how you can pooh-pooh this issue every time it comes up when the majority of the players in the profession you represent disagree with you. It's not up to you to decide, it's up to us - and for you to communicate our issues to the Dev team.
Honestly, I can't for the life of me see why you defend this so adamantly every time it is brought up - when I put together an R3 and it takes me more MA parts than DE parts, that's a HUGE problem. If you make any more than a few droids a week it is a totally unreasonable system, even just in terms of storage - the only way I can function now is that I make my own in my own factory and can leave them in the hopper, I can't imagine having to take a delivery of 1000EGP's and 1000EMM's at the same time - I'd have to dump my whole inventory and part of my backpack just to carry it, let alone what I'd do with it then.
This has absoultely nothing at all to do with the forced dependence to SELL the product, this is all about the CONSTRUCTION of the product, and our products require many more "other profession parts" than any other crafting profession in SWG, hands down.
So please, 1) fight for what your constitients want/believe, not what you want/believe to be true with this issue : we are telling you it is too much!, 2) realize that this is a hardship your profession has that no other has, and it's simply not right, and 3) the virtual requirement of MA for DE is going to make the vendor nerf even worse on us, because as DE's we already have so few skill points to spare.
AO
Message Edited by AudioOrgana on 08-12-2004 03:30 AM
Straker_Atrella wrote:While this may not be the best place for this converstation, here is my input.I never took the people saying you don't NEED MA very seriously either, I use a ton of thep arts and are attached to making them.However, due to recent template changes, I gave up MA. Here is what I did. I harvested the crap out of junk resources, a ton of them. I then made an MSE droid with a datapad and storage module. Made like 30 different schematics for the datapad, most were egps and emms, then put all of the resources into the Droid storage compartment. Those resources never get used for anything but those schematics.When I run out, my MA friend will make me more.Maybe some day, I wil get MA back, we will see. Right now I am actually donig ok though.
That's a good idea, I've wanted to finish off Fencer and didn't know where to get the skill points. I think I'll try this, lol.
Rippen
Roscannon wrote:
You folks may want to check out the Merchant forums for the vendornerf that's coming soon in Pub 10. Be prepared....
/protest
Andoro
Here is what I seen so far... Now to figure out what 3044 leaves me with... 
Thunderheart brings exciting news for you Merchants!
As you know, on August 6th, we put some preliminary changes to the Vendors on Test Center. These changes are part of the commodity server enhancements that we have pushed out. We apologize for any anxiety you may have experienced, but I’m glad to announce we’ve been able to make some good changes to the Vendor limits. While we can’t make the Vendor limits aggregate, we have doubled the number of Vendors merchants can acquire and also increased the amount of Artisan Vendors.
The revised Vendor limits are as follows:
Artisan Business III: Get (1) Vendor, that will hold (100) items, for a total of (100) items for all vendors
Artisan Business IV: Get (2) Vendor, that will hold (100) items, for a total of (200) items for all vendors
Merchant Novice: Get (3) Vendors, that will hold (250) items, for a total of (750) items for all vendors
Merchant Management I: Get (4) Vendors, that will hold (250) items, for a total of (1000) items for all vendors
Merchant Efficiency I: Get (5) Vendors, that will hold (250) items, for a total of (1250) items for all vendors
Merchant Management II: Get (6) Vendors, that will hold (250) items, for a total of (1500) items for all vendors
Merchant Efficiency II: Get (7) Vendors, that will hold (250) items, for a total of (1750) items for all vendors
Merchant Management III: Get (8) Vendors, that will hold (250) items, for a total of (2000) items for all vendors
Merchant Efficiency III: Get (9) Vendors, that will hold (250) items, for a total of (2250) items for all vendors
Merchant Management IV: Get (10) Vendors, that will hold (250) items, for a total of (2500) items for all vendors
Merchant Efficiency IV: Get (11) Vendors, that will hold (250) items, for a total of (2750) items for all vendors
Master Merchant: Get (12) Vendors, that will hold (250) items, for a total of (3000) items for all vendors
Message Edited by Kellisanth on 08-16-2004 11:43 PM
Straker_Atrella wrote:
Malls and shops can already seem cluttered, it's silly to force people to have 6 vendors in a merchant tent just to show all their wares.
Message Edited by Kellisanth on 08-17-2004 12:27 AM
Straker_Atrella wrote:Then use the efficiency line to add amounts to vendors. Ending up with 6 (maybe 7 at Master) that each hold 500 items.The numbers would basically be the same, your just using less vendors, the Efficiency line still ends up getting something as well.
That's what lots of people think too, but I think they did it that way mainly to help the database.
Loading 250 items is easier than loading 500 items for the database.
I'm more than ok with new limit.
I'm only Merchant 3-0-0-0
That mean I'll now have 3 vendors (wich is good) and 250 items on each of them (wich is more than I need).
Gavvot wrote:
Straker_Atrella wrote:
Then use the efficiency line to add amounts to vendors. Ending up with 6 (maybe 7 at Master) that each hold 500 items.
The numbers would basically be the same, your just using less vendors, the Efficiency line still ends up getting something as well.
That's what lots of people think too, but I think they did it that way mainly to help the database.
Loading 250 items is easier than loading 500 items for the database.
I'm more than ok with new limit.
I'm only Merchant 3-0-0-0
That mean I'll now have 3 vendors (wich is good) and 250 items on each of them (wich is more than I need).
Gavoot, I don't understand that really. Database size will still be the same no matter which way they do it. Ok so maybe 500 loading is harder then 250, but cmon, the database has been loading THOUSANDS for how long now? Overall database size I can understand that being a problem but the loading I don't buy.
If anything, the way they are donig it now will ENCOURAGE people to use the extra vendors as storage vendors, increasing the database size.
It will be simply to hard to manage 12 vendors for sale. Even if you split them up at 6/6 or even 4/4/4 for 2 or 3 locations, managing that will be insane. E-mails and restocking will be a nightmare. I expect many people (I know I will,) will use 6-8 of the vendors spread over 1 or 2 locations, then use the other 4 for storage.
I honestly am confused. They take empty vendors off the global map. They make empty vendors go away eventually. All good moves. Then this recent fix (still better then before,) will simply clutter up the global map and the vendor scene even more.
Never noticed that when you look at the detail of something on the vendor it sometimes take ages to display?
Well, with 250 max per vendor it will probably be faster.
The size of a database is one thing, and honestly is kinda easy to manage. Not enough room, add room, end of story.
The load of a database is something else and much harder to balance. It's about memory usage, CPU usage, swap space, hard drive access speed, bandwith usage,...
And a database that is too much and too often on the load part is at much more risk than a database that is at size limit. And on some server problems already occured.
The database hasn't been loading that much of thousands items at once, it only happen on vendor with thousands items, and those are not the majority. But their number increased, and I think that's why this change is needed now.
Gavvot wrote:
Load and size are 2 different things.
Never noticed that when you look at the detail of something on the vendor it sometimes take ages to display?
Well, with 250 max per vendor it will probably be faster.
The size of a database is one thing, and honestly is kinda easy to manage. Not enough room, add room, end of story.
The load of a database is something else and much harder to balance. It's about memory usage, CPU usage, swap space, hard drive access speed, bandwith usage,...
And a database that is too much and too often on the load part is at much more risk than a database that is at size limit. And on some server problems already occured.
The database hasn't been loading that much of thousands items at once, it only happen on vendor with thousands items, and those are not the majority. But their number increased, and I think that's why this change is needed now.
No matter how you look at it, vendor size will be going down. Illegal storage vendors with thousands of items on them will be going away. Legal Vendors like weapons, furniture, clothing, and armor easily had over a thousand items on them. Those numbers will drop.
So yes, 250 is better then 500, but 500 is still better then now.
Mind you, I'm not asking for more items, I just want them on less vendors. The overhead maps at many shopping centers or towns are going to be a nightmare.