Merchant Archive
Thread: For the propoents of limit Answer me this please, How does a vendor limit make the game more fun?
Page 1 of 4
VarnaxDespin
Thu Aug 12, 2004 11:45 am
#1
How does a vendor limit make the game more fun?
I could perhaps see the theory of working out contracts with crafters having some entertainment value for a independant merchant, but I dont see the risks/time involved in starting/maintaining it being very fun for the crafter (thus I think most wont bother).
Perhaps new crafters it will increase their sales, but will that encourage them to make the best items or just pump out sub-standard crap because the hope/know it will sell? Will the customers enjoyment of the game increase because of this?
Will customers enjoy the new quotas that limit individual vendors and thus selection and perhaps having to spendmore time trying to find what they need or waiting longer for what they want to be in stock make the game more enjoyable?
Will independant merchants and crafter/ merchants get more enjoyment spending more time then they already do stocking and maintaing their vendor?
Will merchant crafters get more enjoyment out of making fewer items with less selection and variety because they can only stock thier best sellers?
Message Edited by VarnaxDespin on 08-12-2004 12:00 PM
LadyGrey
Thu Aug 12, 2004 11:49 am
#2
This game is supposed to be fun?????
Welcome to 1984. Tedium is actually immersion, and work-arounds are actually game-play.
How many fingers am I holding up?
ResourceMonkey
Thu Aug 12, 2004 11:50 am
#3
Going with the Database overload theory:
The game is more fun because all items on all vendors and bazaars aren't suddenly lost due to a database crash.
Going with competition theory:
The game is more fun because being a DE crafter, I can actually get some sales on my vendor after "MR BIG BOT" sells out of his things and he's not online to restock. Yay, I feel like a valued member of society! No, I won't make crap because "MR Almost as good as MR BIG BOT just on another planet" will get the business instead of me.
Message Edited by ResourceMonkey on 08-12-2004 11:51 AM
VarnaxDespin
Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:07 pm
#4
joined42904 wrote:
Varnax,
Nothing in that post looks sarcastic to me.
Ok, we just see it different then, its up to Monkey to clarify or not.
There are no quotas. Please explain to me how there is any kind of quota. You could restock your vendor 5 times a day in theory. That isn't a quota system at all.
Well you are only allowed "X" # of items per vendor....
American Heritage Dictionary: The maxium number that can be admitted.
Thus with a strict limit the maxium items we can have on our vendor is"x" or in other words... a quota.
I don't think every crafter should be identical. I think getting to the top should involve some amount of effort as it does now.
And how should that be done? By quality, amount of products, finding and maintaining a good resource stock? How is ones effort to get to the "top" expressed? Isnt getting to the "top" what you have been railing against? Its the "Top Dogs" that have the most sales/stock of items...dont you want to limit that? Or am I mis-reading you? Are you actually against limits?
I do disagree with the way resources presently work in that even after being around for a number of months there are still great resources that predate me that some folks have and that I don't. Tough for me? I would prefer a guarantee of respawn of those best resources at least once every 3 months or so. Or implement resource decay so that mining 5M of a certain resource in month 1 doesn't result in an essentially permanent advantage for you and your group. Do you really disagree with this?
I dont know about you server, but on mine there are many ways to get quality old spawn resoruces... and many resoruces that do spawn can be used in certain areas just as good as older "uber" ones. When I was a starting AS, I struggled but mangaged to obtain everything I needed to compete and excel within less then 2 months with only 3mil starting capital.
I'm for resource stats mattering. And folks having to chase good resources or get others to do that on their behalf. I'm also for experimentation mattering. So you need to be taught or figure out how to make the best stuff. (But chasing resources shouldn't mean paying extortionate prices for resources that spawned 8 months ago. That seems like bad game design to me.)
So because you dont like the resource system, we should then limit vendor size to make it so players will be "forced" to buy items of lesser quality so things will be more fair?
joined42904
Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:08 pm
#5
Halaster,
I really like you. Because we come so close to agreeing on very important points. If the devs would just implement anything both of us can manage to agree on the game would be so much the better for it.
I agree with you on the need for a real search feature also. Let people search all vendors everywhere in the galaxy for the goods they want. Use that hand in hand with the vendor limits. This will virtually eliminate any hardship to consumers caused by certain vendors becoming unstocked.
I see that you sell weapons, resources, and powerups. These are the items that will be most hurt by vendor limits. Resources won't be that much hurt if they would just put things into 100k stacks instead of making me buy 10 different 10k stacks of the items. (Which I find annoying but which I would be grateful for if I were totally just starting out.) Weapons you are going to need to sell in crates for the most part. And powerups I think we will both have to sell in backpacks if I'm not mistaken. (I sell powerups too. And I think crates of 10 is too low.)
I don't think armorsmiths are hamstrung at all by the limits so long as a backpack with armor in it counts as one item. I think we will manage just fine with these limitations. That's 110 suits of armor per vendor times 6 vendors. Not many people are ever this well stocked.
I actually wouldn't mind if the devs made the limits apply differently to the different professions. 110 or even 80 I think would be fine for armorsmith. But it may not do for tailors or weaponsmiths. The limit should be low enough that you will become unstocked if you are the major oligopolist in your field and don't restock every day.
I know that 4 points matters to consumers. I know that 2% on base matters to consumers. And it matters way more than in actual gameplay difference it really should matter. (Ok...I need to stop trying to tell people what to think. 
) My point is...give them a search feature and they will be able to find very near comparable goods with little effort. And while it may not make them "happy" to pay 200k less for 2% less base on armor, I don't think it's something they will quit the game over. And it will really enhance the experience of the younger crafters.
) My point is...give them a search feature and they will be able to find very near comparable goods with little effort. And while it may not make them "happy" to pay 200k less for 2% less base on armor, I don't think it's something they will quit the game over. And it will really enhance the experience of the younger crafters.I still support the idea of vendor limits. And I think you are overstating their effects when you talk about "hamstringing" existing crafters. They do limit the market share of any one crafter. But that's what the FTC does too. 
joined42904
Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:25 pm
#7
Varnax,
It's easier for me to have a discussion with you if you don't answer within a quotation of what I have written. But I will try anyway.
There is no quota for what any crafter can sell. There is no quota per unit time on what any crafter can sell with the new features. You could camp your vendor and restock at the same rate that things are purchased. There is nothing preventing you from selling to resellers. There isn't any cap at all even on the number of factories you can have admin on (which I feel there should be).
Being in favor of limits on stock is not the same as wanting all crafters to be identical. I do want crafters within individual professions to have the same reasonable limit on what they can stock (total items). Given that the stock isn't identical in most cases, I would think I am still allowed to claim that I don't want all crafters to be identical.
I do think that limiting market share by limiting maximum stock is a good idea on the part of the devs. It doesn't limit the stock you can have had over the course of a week. It doesn't limit special orders. The person who is forced (because you are out of stock) to buy a gun with 4 lower max damage or a suit of armor that 1-2% lower in base isn't really harmed in any significant way by the change. It's not as if your customers are suddenly going to have to buy guns that do 1/2 as much damage or armor that's 10% lower in base. That's not what's going to happen. The goods are, while not identical and not exactly the same quality, at lease what might be considered "comparable." And it's good that the barely-less-good-than-you crafter has a market for his wares imo.
Sigrun
Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:39 pm
#8
joined42904 wrote:
Halaster,
I really like you. Because we come so close to agreeing on very important points. If the devs would just implement anything both of us can manage to agree on the game would be so much the better for it.
I agree with you on the need for a real search feature also. Let people search all vendors everywhere in the galaxy for the goods they want. Use that hand in hand with the vendor limits. This will virtually eliminate any hardship to consumers caused by certain vendors becoming unstocked.
No. The hardship will be consumers having to settle for inferior products at inflated prices, or for no products while they wait for those who are capable ofmaking superior products at reasonable prices to re-stock their vendors.
I see that you sell weapons, resources, and powerups. These are the items that will be most hurt by vendor limits.
Are you stoned? Tailors. Architects. Chefs. All will be hurt WAY more than me with my 200-ish weapons inventory and 150-ish resource inventory. I don't sell powerups any more (old sig). (Yes, two accounts.)
Resources won't be that much hurt if they would just put things into 100k stacks instead of making me buy 10 different 10k stacks of the items. (Which I find annoying but which I would be grateful for if I were totally just starting out.) Weapons you are going to need to sell in crates for the most part. And powerups I think we will both have to sell in backpacks if I'm not mistaken. (I sell powerups too. And I think crates of 10 is too low.)
I don't think armorsmiths are hamstrung at all by the limits so long as a backpack with armor in it counts as one item. I think we will manage just fine with these limitations. That's 110 suits of armor per vendor times 6 vendors. Not many people are ever this well stocked.
Except I consistently see people buy a suit +1 helmets + 1 chestplate... if you don't know why, you need to do some homework on your profession.
I actually wouldn't mind if the devs made the limits apply differently to the different professions. 110 or even 80 I think would be fine for armorsmith. But it may not do for tailors or weaponsmiths. The limit should be low enough that you will become unstocked if you are the major oligopolist in your field and don't restock every day.
Did you not read and re-read YOUR OWN WORDS that I asked you to familiarize yourself with? It's not about sales ceilings. It's about resource avilability.
I know that 4 points matters to consumers. I know that 2% on base matters to consumers. And it matters way more than in actual gameplay difference it really should matter. (Ok...I need to stop trying to tell people what to think.
There you go with "very near comparable" again. That means WORSE stuff for HIGHER prices. Stop it. That's BAD for consumers. Unless you're interested in paying around $40k for my used Accord so I can go out and buy a nice new BMW...?
Again, enhancing the experience of young crafters by enabling them to be lazy is not much of an enhancement. I'd rather enhance their ability to compete by helping them to obtain resources comparable to what the established crafters use.
That is to say, let's bring the newbs "up" instead of bring the established crafters "down". Be positive and helpful instead of negative and harmful.
I still support the idea of vendor limits. And I think you are overstating their effects when you talk about "hamstringing" existing crafters. They do limit the market share of any one crafter. But that's what the FTC does too.
It does? How many desktops are running Linux vs. Microsoft operating systems today? How is the FTC limiting the number of vehicles that Ford or GM or Toyota can sell in the U.S.? How is it limiting the number of copies of SW:G that SOE can sell?
You are not thinking clearly and you have strayed FAR from the path of logic in this debate.
joined42904
Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:47 pm
#9
Halaster,
Resources are part of it.
But I think they are not the entire story. Habits die hard. A player hears about the more established crafters by word of mouth. They start buying there. They continue buying there.
A new crafter moves in up the street. Same product. Same price. Do the folks buy from the new crafter? Well...I think they continue going to the established crafter. Because they know he will be "in stock" as he has never gone out of stock for xxx months.
Do you see how resources aren't the whole story?
I think that even with identical products, the new crafter would benefit immensely by artificial, SOE-emposed caps on the established crafter's vendor stock. Then folks would go down the street and see the same thing there and have two equally good places to buy items.
Do you really think it's 100% about the resources? (I grant you that they play a big part and that tiny differences in quality are regarded as important by much of the player base.)
Sigrun
Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:53 pm
#10
joined42904 wrote:
Halaster,
Resources are part of it.
But I think they are not the entire story. Habits die hard. A player hears about the more established crafters by word of mouth. They start buying there. They continue buying there.
Yep. I buy Honda cars. I have bought my last 4 vehicles from the exact same salesman working at the exact same dealership. Why? Because I like him, because he knows his cars, and because he gives me a fair deal. My lease is up in September. Can you imagine how pissed off I'd be if the government arbitrarily said he couldn't sell any more Hondas this year?
Hell, I'd have to go buy a GM or something and then I'd have to suffer with it being in the shop 1/4 of the year. That would REALLY piss me off.
Forcing me to buy inferior products for higher prices is dead nuts against what should happen in a market economy. It's bad for consumers.
A new crafter moves in up the street. Same product. Same price. Do the folks buy from the new crafter? Well...I think they continue going to the established crafter. Because they know he will be "in stock" as he has never gone out of stock for xxx months.
Do you see how resources aren't the whole story?
Did the new crafter advertise? Since he has exactly the same product as the established crafter, has he done antyhing else to differentiate himself from his competition? Has he done anything to take sales away from his competitor besides making stuff and stocking a vendor? In business, if he's to be the upstart and succed, he has to PUT IN THE EFFORT. Again, you want to reward the guy for being lazy. Screw lazy. He don't deserve the business if that's all he's gonna do.
I think that even with identical products, the new crafter would benefit immensely by artificial, SOE-emposed caps on the established crafter's vendor stock. Then folks would go down the street and see the same thing there and have two equally good places to buy items.
Do you really think it's 100% about the resources? (I grant you that they play a big part and that tiny differences in quality are regarded as important by much of the player base.)
No, it's not 100% resources. It's part resources and part smarts / effort / business savvy / creativity/ luck.
By the same token, it should NOT be 100% game-imposed limits. It should be part resources / smarts / effort / savvy / creativity / luck. And ZERO % game-imposed limits.
joined42904
Thu Aug 12, 2004 2:03 pm
#11
I still think the game-imposed limits will make the game more fun for the casual crafter.
And I think it will reduce the amount of money sold on ebay. Want to bet me on this?
Oh...advertising. You mean posting on the trade boards and keeping the post bumped? You mean spamming at starports? I did the tradeboard posting. I've also done word of mouth with the major rebel guilds on the server (some of them at least). I haven't really spammed starports yet. I have used the auction channel to inform people of my wares. The auction channel may yet be one of the great equalizers for crafters.
I think game-imposed vendor stocking caps should play a role in the player economy. I understand that you don't. Neither to other very successful crafters. Will they find a way around the limits? Probably. Maybe they have someone else stock a bunch of vendors there with their products. Maybe they do something else. Maybe they get more accounts. But you know what? All the solutions involve interacting with other players (or other accounts).
I would think the established crafters would find the additional challenge posed by vendor caps enjoyable.
Sigrun
Thu Aug 12, 2004 2:09 pm
#12
joined42904 wrote:
I still think the game-imposed limits will make the game more fun for the casual crafter.
In the face of all the evidence and logic I've offered to show you why they're evil, you still want to make the game more fun for the lazy crafter? Bite me.
And I think it will reduce the amount of money sold on ebay. Want to bet me on this?
Where the hell did the Ebay argument come from? Lose out on the rest of 'em so move to that? If Ebay is a problem, I'm sure LA and SOE have plenty of legal eagles to fix it.
Oh...advertising. You mean posting on the trade boards and keeping the post bumped? You mean spamming at starports? I did the tradeboard posting. I've also done word of mouth with the major rebel guilds on the server (some of them at least). I haven't really spammed starports yet. I have used the auction channel to inform people of my wares. The auction channel may yet be one of the great equalizers for crafters.
Advertising, sure. More imporantly, EFFORT. New crafters should not be given an "I win" button for their business. They need to put in the same effort as the established crafters in order to compete with them.
I think game-imposed vendor stocking caps should play a role in the player economy. I understand that you don't. Neither to other very successful crafters. Will they find a way around the limits? Probably. Maybe they have someone else stock a bunch of vendors there with their products. Maybe they do something else. Maybe they get more accounts. But you know what? All the solutions involve interacting with other players (or other accounts).
So?
I would think the established crafters would find the additional challenge posed by vendor caps enjoyable.
Actually, we find it stupid.
I think we tend to enjoy challenges that mirror those in a real-world market economy. How do we make a better product? How do we differentiate ourselves from our competition when our resources and thus our products are virtually identical? How do we get more efficient about creating our goods so we can price more competitively? What other products can we offer that compliment our current ones?
What do we do now that we've sold our allotted 10,000 man-hours of software develoment for the year and it's only August? No, that problem is NOT entertaining. It's retarded.
cinnamon_tsunami
Thu Aug 12, 2004 2:12 pm
#13
ResourceMonkey wrote:
Going with the Database overload theory:
The game is more fun because all items on all vendors and bazaars aren't suddenly lost due to a database crash.
seems pretty unlikely, unless the same guys do the data base as the "content," lol
Going with competition theory:
The game is more fun because being a DE crafter, I can actually get some sales on my vendor after "MR BIG BOT" sells out of his things and he's not online to restock.
sorry to break this to you, but sales will probably be slow after a big sell-off. yeah, it will probably be pretty sucky for everyone
Yay, I feel like a valued member of society! No, I won't make crap because "MR Almost as good as MR BIG BOT just on another planet" will get the business instead of me.
Message Edited by ResourceMonkey on 08-12-2004 11:51 AM
Page 1 of 4