Merchant Archive
Thread: Lot rebalance comming?
TH wrote in a "Jedi Punchlist" thread at: http://forums.station.sony.com/swg/board/message?board.id=Developers&message.id=34821#M34821
"Once the last details of the Jedi revamp go live, a Jedi will be able to have 10 lots per server. This will ultimately be addressed when we rebalance all characters lots, but that will not be happening in Publish 9."
Lots are often a big issue for Merchants, and a proposal to "rebalance all characters lots" implies major changes.
Any idea what this is about? Merchants were once supposed to "be the only class able to have more than one house" according to Holocron. Shouldn't we get extra lots?
Happymob wrote:
Coming out of Fanfest, the rumor was that they were considering dealing with cross-server lot trading by either removing admin rights on certain structures (like harvesters) or limiting number of lots per account, rather than by character. That sounds like they may be leaning towards the latter. If it's coming out in publish 10, we'll know soon enough when that hits test center (and the inevitable firestorm starts).
Xrool wrote:
DocSavag, any word on the status of vendors remaining after dropping merchant? I haven't heard anything in a while and was just curious. Thanks.
It will be fixed is the word...the when is up in the air. I'll let you know when I know. Probably you will know when you read the patch notes on TC. I MIGHT have a slight heads up on it..then again I might not.
Darkov wrote:
Removing admin rights on Harvesters would hurt, a lot. Removing admin rights on buildings though..... so then only a merchant could run a mall... and if a merchant could rent (or something similiar) vendors...
Most lot sharing is normal static buildings, not the Harvesters, so removing admin rights on them is stupid.
DocSavag wrote:
No..I'm pretty secure in saying that most lot sharing is harvesters. The point of lot reduction is controlling resource gathering
It may not alwaysbe harvesters directly, but harvester lots are probablywhy mostpeople would want to do it.
It is a whole lot easier to lease house lots than a harvester lot. Havethe suppliercreate a character anddrop your houses. They never have to log that character in again, it used to be they could even delete it. So long as they don't delete the character, they can even cancel the account. That would work for a factory as well. If your house(s) are leased, you have more lots left for harvesters.
Harvesters on the other hand become useless where they sit and need to be moved, that requires the owner to log in and travel to the new location. The relationship is more like a part timeemployee than a lease. The only thing that changing the admin rights would do is require that the employee do a bit more, and increase the required login frequency a littlewhen the spawn lasted past the harvester capacity Not even the latterif hopper rights were allowed.
Haruspex77 wrote:
Harvesters on the other hand become useless where they sit and need to be moved
Happymob wrote:
Coming out of Fanfest, the rumor was that they were considering dealing with cross-server lot trading by either removing admin rights on certain structures (like harvesters) or limiting number of lots per account, rather than by character. That sounds like they may be leaning towards the latter. If it's coming out in publish 10, we'll know soon enough when that hits test center (and the inevitable firestorm starts).
I do not like this idea at all. Not because i have harvester fields out the butt, but because what about malls, having more than one account, etc........?
Examples:
1) I have 2 accounts- i share those lots between the two. When i place something down i place admin for both alts on same structure. It saves me time from switching each in to check the hoppers, add power, add money, switch resources around, etc......... This will effect that and i cant use my 2 alts to help each other out. Which is wrong if they do this.
2) I had a friend who was in the reserves, he was sent to the middle east for sometime. I was put on admin so i could upkeep his structures while he was gone ( and yes i got to use them as well but thats besides the point). If you have to go away for awhile, or its a split second decision ( death in family) you dont have time to take everything down, when you return everything you had would be gone.
3) I belong to a Mall, we have about 15 people on admin list. We place vendors and some items we show off that we sell. If either of the above happens it will hurt malls and guilds. Malls save room and space, allows people to work as one and better for the community.
Best way to prevent lot trading==== have decay on structures. If you suffered a 2-5% decay on harvesters everyweek- fields would be gone in no time. ANd then who would want to waste time to replace all that. Keep decay off houses, guildhalls, and cityhalls, and all city structures.
DocSavag wrote:
Harvesters do not become useless where they sit. The constant resource shift means that the down time for them is very little even if you leave them in one place.
I suppose you are right, but it is a business I don't like myself. I have found myself harvesting junk resources just because I didn't feel like moving the harvester, and felt embarassed to do so. But it did return a net profit most of the time.
It had the same kind of newbie feel to me as harvesting nuna meat, breaking factory crates on the bazaar, or selling low quality products cheap. It gave a positive return at the cost of some pride. Not the sort of thing I wanted one of my charactersto do oncehe was out of newbie clothes.
I suppose though, that having a cashflow farm with a dozen heavies pumping out marketable product could be something to take pride in no matter how poor the product.