Merchant Archive
Thread: Before you cast the first stone...
Page 1 of 5
Chickenlad
Sun Jun 13, 2004 11:53 pm
#1
...yup, another poacher vendor thread, deal.
Have you ever used your efficiency 4 skill to decrease the payment on someone else's structure? Added 1 credit to the maint pool to save them a bunch of $? Guess what, you're just as "guilty" as the vendor poachers. You are creating a situation where a player who has not invested and kept the skill points, recieves the benefit.
If you haven't, kudos.
I sure hope you'll be pushing as hard to take away the ability to reduce maint costs on buildings you do not own as you are to remove the ability to use poached vendors. I know if they remove poached vendors without completly overhauling the Merchant profession, I will.
I'll also push for a system that, should a planted structure be transferred after the reduced maint is applied, the system does a check to see if the new owner has efficiency 4, and if they do not, the maint costs revert to standard.
-Snift
BountyBlunter
Mon Jun 14, 2004 7:09 am
#4
No never used it...
You knowI'm pretty sure I got awhiff of lemon when I walked in to this thread.. Might not have been lemon, but definately something bitter.
DocSavag
Mon Jun 14, 2004 7:34 am
#5
Chickenlad wrote:
...yup, another poacher vendor thread, deal.
Have you ever used your efficiency 4 skill to decrease the payment on someone else's structure? Added 1 credit to the maint pool to save them a bunch of $? Guess what, you're just as "guilty" as the vendor poachers. You are creating a situation where a player who has not invested and kept the skill points, recieves the benefit.
If you haven't, kudos.
I sure hope you'll be pushing as hard to take away the ability to reduce maint costs on buildings you do not own as you are to remove the ability to use poached vendors. I know if they remove poached vendors without completly overhauling the Merchant profession, I will.
I'll also push for a system that, should a planted structure be transferred after the reduced maint is applied, the system does a check to see if the new owner has efficiency 4, and if they do not, the maint costs revert to standard.
-Snift
Its not an exploit or unintended. It was designed that way on purpose to allow Merchants to get the discount on lots they rented from other people.
If you would like that changed you are free to suggest it.
Chickenlad
Mon Jun 14, 2004 9:41 am
#7
Err, could you provide me a link to a dev post, or some information in the manual regarding that point of view? I don't think I've seen that logic before (and hey, it could be out there...I'm not forgetting the last time I sounded off about nothing in the holocron about items poofing from the storeroom =p). Honestly though, I can't even remember a post where a Dev suggests that renting lotsfrom other players is one of the intended functions of merchant.
DocSavag wrote:
Chickenlad wrote:
...yup, another poacher vendor thread, deal.
Have you ever used your efficiency 4 skill to decrease the payment on someone else's structure? Added 1 credit to the maint pool to save them a bunch of $? Guess what, you're just as "guilty" as the vendor poachers. You are creating a situation where a player who has not invested and kept the skill points, recieves the benefit.
If you haven't, kudos.
I sure hope you'll be pushing as hard to take away the ability to reduce maint costs on buildings you do not own as you are to remove the ability to use poached vendors. I know if they remove poached vendors without completly overhauling the Merchant profession, I will.
I'll also push for a system that, should a planted structure be transferred after the reduced maint is applied, the system does a check to see if the new owner has efficiency 4, and if they do not, the maint costs revert to standard.
-Snift
Its not an exploit or unintended. It was designed that way on purpose to allow Merchants to get the discount on lots they rented from other people.
If you would like that changed you are free to suggest it.
DocSavag
Mon Jun 14, 2004 10:10 am
#8
I'll try to get you a quote but I know the intent because the primary complaint from early merchants about the reduction is that it wasn't as useful as it should be becasue they couldn't use it on all their structures.
It is certainly possible they will decide to change it. However I'm not sure what connection it has to the skill point question. Frankly this post strikes me as rather trollish.
rexan
Mon Jun 14, 2004 11:07 am
#9
I do it all the time. I believe this skill is working as intended.
I'm one of the main merchants for our guild. I am managing the Guild hall, many city building, and anyones house and factory who trust me enough to allow me admin access.
If I place 1 cr into any structure, that structure get a -20% on maintance costs. (great for the PA). However, as soon as a non merchant places any additional maintance into the structure, the bonus goes away.
Its one of the few skills that actually works. And makes the merchant a rather popular player in the guild. I'd love to see an extension of this skill in the master box.
Chickenlad
Mon Jun 14, 2004 7:41 pm
#10
Yes, I'd like to see the quote.
Let me spell out the connection for you, since you're so quick to label an idea you don't understand as "trolling", which to me reeks of an abuse of power (because hey, troll threads can be locked).
Poached Merchants = someone gets a skill and then drops it, yet still has the benefits associated with that skill. Namely, the ability to use merchants as long as they aren't moved, etc. The problem, as I see it, is someone who has notcommitted the points and made the compromises necessary by foregoing other skills, gains the advantage of someone who has spent the points and keeps them there. The player recieves the benefit even though they do not have the required skill.
Maintenance = someone who does not have the skill (maint 4), nor necessarily has ever achieved it, can reap the benefits of the 20% discount merely by having a friend drop in a single credit. Therefore, someone who has not comitted the points and made the compromises necessary by foregoing other skills gains the benefit of the skill without having to invest in it.
Yes, I concede, the two situations are not identical. One could even argue, and I'm sure someone will, that hey, that's the benefit of the merchant profession. They can charge others a small surcharge to reduce their overall maintenance.
You would like to have it so that when additional merchants skill boxes are dropped, already placed merchants are no longer useable. If I do not haveTKA, I cannot use unarmed hit 3, because I lack the invested points. In my opinion, if a player does not have maintenance 4, their structures should not benefit from the perks it gains, because they have not invested the points.
If you would like to argue that merchants should be able to reduce maint costs for others as a benefit of their profession, then I can't possibly see a resason why that identical line of thought cannot be applied to allow merchants to place vendors for other people, therefore allowing them to have vendors without the merchant skill.
-Snift
Psynth
Mon Jun 14, 2004 10:29 pm
#11
Using your logic someone with admin to a friends or alternate accounts house should not be allowed to use it for storage.
This is no different than having a friendly ch/be give you a pet that you couldnt have gotten on your own. They did the work
for you. You are reaping the benefits but someone else did some sort of work to get you your benefit. If a merchant wants
to go around and put maintenance in then thats up to them but they still have to do work to do it.
The last statement about allowing merchants to place vendors for other people would work if the merchant used up his/her
alloted amount of vendors imho but thats a totally different subject.
DragonScout
Tue Jun 15, 2004 1:00 am
#12
LOL.
nice thread. and good point. Seems to me that it is at least a bug, or at least a bit of hypocricy.
As far as people suggestion admin rights are similiar... admin rights don't take skill points, so it doesn't fit.
Weapons take certs to use, so they do require skill point investment.
weaponsmiths make items to sell, that is their role in the game, if you had to be a weaponsmith to use an item, it would be counterproductive -- to almost every profession, so again, bad example, try again.
This maintence fee reduction is totally a bug. I am not even sure why it would work on any structures other than you own. The skill itself says that it is for structures you own. Just because you have admin rights on someone's house or harvester doesn't mean you own it.
Please post a Link to a quote Doc stating this is intended or even correct, otherwise I think this needs to be added to the list of things to be fixed. since we are so concerned about making sure that exploits are fixed, it should be there. And if this IS intended, I am not sure how this can be considered not an exploit if vendor poaching is, because if you or friends can still receive the reduction after you are removed from admin or after you drop the skills, that is exactly the same as vendor poaching.
nice thread. and good point. Seems to me that it is at least a bug, or at least a bit of hypocricy.
As far as people suggestion admin rights are similiar... admin rights don't take skill points, so it doesn't fit.
Weapons take certs to use, so they do require skill point investment.
weaponsmiths make items to sell, that is their role in the game, if you had to be a weaponsmith to use an item, it would be counterproductive -- to almost every profession, so again, bad example, try again.
This maintence fee reduction is totally a bug. I am not even sure why it would work on any structures other than you own. The skill itself says that it is for structures you own. Just because you have admin rights on someone's house or harvester doesn't mean you own it.
Please post a Link to a quote Doc stating this is intended or even correct, otherwise I think this needs to be added to the list of things to be fixed. since we are so concerned about making sure that exploits are fixed, it should be there. And if this IS intended, I am not sure how this can be considered not an exploit if vendor poaching is, because if you or friends can still receive the reduction after you are removed from admin or after you drop the skills, that is exactly the same as vendor poaching.
BountyBlunter
Tue Jun 15, 2004 1:53 am
#13
I don't think it should be fixed at all, it should be developed.
If I invest the skillpoints into gaining eff 4 and I want to charge someone with 10xBER 13 harvestors 10% of the -20% reduction in costs on those harvestors for one week I should be able to do that.. For a start I have the skills which is more than most people these days. If I apply this -20% structure bonus to a structure it has been said it will vanish when a non-merhcant attempts to add maintenance to it.. So this bonus is directly tied into the the actions of the merchant with the invested SP..
As a true merchant (as in yes I have the skills) I feel that just because the profession is going to call for the removal of poached vendors by shameless exploiters and this causes a great deal of resentment, I don't think we should remove any actual benefits to the profession which we could work on and improve..
Page 1 of 5