Merchant Archive
Thread: Backpacks on Vendors
shadowdefender
Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:47 am
#118
Actually my views on this issue have changed at first I thought yes they should count towards limits... however in rethinking it - I don't believe they should. Reasonably an Armoursmith should be able to sell a pack of armour as one unit... very rarely do I ever go looking for armour in pieces and when I do its frustrating to go through and make sure I have all the same colors etc.
The packs would not effect db load time because they would load as one item and not be such a huge hit on the db.
I don't think packs allow anyone to get around the system - its more actually of using the system wisely and efficiently.
The packs would not effect db load time because they would load as one item and not be such a huge hit on the db.
I don't think packs allow anyone to get around the system - its more actually of using the system wisely and efficiently.
OditeFosore
Wed Aug 25, 2004 10:21 am
#119
And do you ever read the boards and get to know how folks you berate really feel before you lash out with ackward and childish anger? The guy has stated he knows there's problems that need to be addressed and that while some of the fixes are good, there are issues that need to be addressed. The 2 concerns he has already told the community he is bringing up is that folks like armorsmiths that sell "sets" need to somehow still be able to sell sets in the new system and that the ability to offer items to vendors for folks like tailors and BE's that offer large runs to vendors regularly needs to be addressed. Wow, he answered both your problems right there. But, then again he was too busy kissing dev ass according to you... Of course your even temper and well though out posts make you a perfect candidate for doing his job. I'm sure the community would whole-heartedly back your level head if you wanted to replace DocSavag...lol.
Ciirybeccaskyr wrote:
DocSavag wrote:
As many of you know containers on vendors on TC currently count as 1 item towards the sales item limit. This was obviously not intended and I have confirmed with JustG that it won't remain that way. It might not get changed before publish 10 gets released however VERY soon the total items in the container will count against your item limit cap.
This really was the only way to do it, it makes no sense to set item limits and then give people a way to store 50x that number in containers.
Edit: Please don't use packs to store things on your vendor above the limit of the items you can have in the mean time. You will only get frustrated when theyh fix it and having informed you in advance the sympathy level will be rather low. You can still use backpacks of course just realize that when this gets changed if you are over the limit you will have to reorganize things to get back under the limit.
Message Edited by DocSavag on 08-21-2004 03:42 PM
do you ever bother to think anything out????
or do you jsut hop on the badwagon odf trying to get at people using vendors as storage and let that total blind you to the other issues that this causes? Or are you simply incapable of seeing them.
Either way i think we need someone that will actualy speek for us not jump on the half asses poorly thought through ideas of the devs with the zeal you do.
How are you unable to see the effect this will have on people offering items to my vendor? sets of cubes from the geo cave better not have more than 3 sets. RIS componets better not have more than 2 drops to sell me. same with NS layers. Oh and armro subcomponetns cant even offer me a full run of those to my vendor.
These are just a few of the MAJOR ISSUES THAT YOU HAVE FAILED TO CONSIDER IN YOUR QUEST TO KISS AS MUCH DEV ASS AS YOU CAN.
Catter
Wed Aug 25, 2004 11:05 am
#120
I'm sorry to be negative, but that change will be completely unacceptable until the devs do something about the pathetic storage limits in game. I cannot believe that anyone who actually has a successful crafting business like BE, Chef, Armor or WS could not be throwing up all kinds of red flags to the devs. Making packs count as their contents will be just as devastating as the idiotic 110 item limit IF you do not address storage first.
I'm guessing the devs won't do this, but it will just create all kinds of FUD if one of them doesn't take a few minutes to let us know if they actually DO have a plan.
shadowdefender
Wed Aug 25, 2004 1:45 pm
#121
Actually after playing Dark Age of Camelot and being limited to my pack and how much strength I had (oh and realizing the things in your pack burden you) and a storage compartment in their bank I have found SWG a bit generous in regards to storage. But I haven't played some of the other games like Ever Quest etc - so don't know if they have more.
Tirgwystraff
Wed Aug 25, 2004 3:57 pm
#122
shadowdefender wrote:
Actually after playing Dark Age of Camelot and being limited to my pack and how much strength I had (oh and realizing the things in your pack burden you) and a storage compartment in their bank I have found SWG a bit generous in regards to storage. But I haven't played some of the other games like Ever Quest etc - so don't know if they have more.
In addition to bank storage ( which holds more items than the one here), they also now have house vaults ( yep another much higher than here limit). ALSO, you get 6 free vendors whose only limit is they can't sell any more when they hit 200p. This means you have to clean them off periodically cash wise. That would be like us getting 6 free vendors, no item limit, but with a 20 million in sales until you need tovisit your vendorsagain. ( ALOT less lag there too, I have no trouble stolling around houseing areas there. You can customize the exterior of your home too).
In EQ, the devs freely admit tradeskills were an afterthought. They were meant from gitgo to be a money sink. You cannot buy resources, and craft for a profit. Everytime a profitable ( however small) way came out, it got nerfed ( even advanced arrowmaking). You can sell the looted resources for more than crafting it into something as well ( comparable to pulling ore from the ground at .5 cpu, selling it to the vendor at 3 cpu, or crafting it into a house, where they offer 100 credits total for it). They tried to jazz it up, and give it a purpose, but it still became mid level twink goods, for those not capable of raiding. After lvl 50, if you are wearing anything player crafted, you get thrown out of raids as a hinderance ( sorta like wearing maberi to the corvette assassination missions or DWB
)
Difference between DAoC, EQ and this?? THIS IS A PURELY PLAYER CRAFTED ECONOMY. In EQ and DAoC, you can get by very nicely without player crafted goods. Right now, the markets are destroyed in those games for crafter goods. In DAoC, the only currently marketable skill is Spellcrafting. Even trinketing got a huge nerf bat swung on it. EQ doubled bank space for all characters, AND allowed bank sharing for them. You can get several chars per server as well.
Tirgwystraff
Wed Aug 25, 2004 4:03 pm
#123
shadowdefender wrote:
Actually after playing Dark Age of Camelot and being limited to my pack and how much strength I had (oh and realizing the things in your pack burden you) and a storage compartment in their bank I have found SWG a bit generous in regards to storage. But I haven't played some of the other games like Ever Quest etc - so don't know if they have more.
PS the closest game to a player crafted economy is UO, and they had a sh*tload more storage space there than here. My account was granfathered for 5 houses. Even the smallest shack got 450 items ( no weight limit). I had a tower in trammel all by itself on another server. A tower holds 1100 items. Backpacks hold more than here as well ( 125), ( plus weight limit) and banks hold 125 items ( no limit), not 100 like here. Resources didn't have quality. The only difference was in metal ingots, which came in a variety of colors, each rarer than the next. Resources only stacked to 60k, however, if a suit of armor took you 5000 units of metal, you needed to take your newbie smith a$$ back to a lower armor!! An exceptional bow would take me 20 units, armor 250, tailored leather armor less than 20. You could also salvage less than exceptional items for half their resource value ( which DAoC does as well).
Duckfat
Wed Aug 25, 2004 8:12 pm
#124
DocSavag wrote:
As many of you know containers on vendors on TC currently count as 1 item towards the sales item limit. This was obviously not intended and I have confirmed with JustG that it won't remain that way. It might not get changed before publish 10 gets released however VERY soon the total items in the container will count against your item limit cap.
This really was the only way to do it, it makes no sense to set item limits and then give people a way to store 50x that number in containers.
Edit: Please don't use packs to store things on your vendor above the limit of the items you can have in the mean time. You will only get frustrated when theyh fix it and having informed you in advance the sympathy level will be rather low. You can still use backpacks of course just realize that when this gets changed if you are over the limit you will have to reorganize things to get back under the limit.
Message Edited by DocSavag on 08-21-2004 03:42 PM
Well I havent read all of the posts in this thread but here are some things that I find wrong with trying to fix using vendors as storage this way:
For one it is working completely against what I hear the merchants want to be, a storefront for multiple crafters. Lets say you as a merchant have 10 crafters that want to use you to sell their goods. With the master merchant 4k item cap that leaves an average of 400 items per crafter. I can already see a bunch of your crafters that will have to supply you on a daily basis to keep items in stock.
In addition it makes it prohibitive to even put suits into bags because it takes up an extra space on your vendor. Therefore it becomes more of a hassle as you have to stock everything seperately or waste the vendor space that has become more precious with the item caps. Not to mention that you will probably have to waste the extra space to keep lots of identical loot together unless you plan on listing them seperately and have your customer look through all of your items for the same ID number.
I am sure there were other good reasons given for why this is a bad idea but I cannot think of any right now and wish to discuss some of the things that will have to be done if this were to go through:
The first thing that comes to mind is gettingloot with identical ID numbers to stack and count as one item much the same way crates count as one item.
Another thing that comes to mind is giving crafters a schematic for a complete suit as well as individual items. That way they can either craft individual items or craft a complete suit that they can sell as one item. The same would go for stuff like doc buffs. Let them craft a whole set so they can sell as one item instead of having to stock 6 different crates when they are usually sold in sets. There are probably other examples but I cant think of any right now.
Maybe you could also introduce a new bag that only holds 10 items that will be allowed on the vendor. It would solve most of the stacking problems for selling things as I dont think there is a set of stuff that is larger than a stck of 10 (except maybe some loot drops but they are rare enough to not really be a burden). Sure there may be people that still use this as storage but at least it is a more manageable problem than a 20x or 50x bag.
Now instead of having to add those things to fix some of the problems that this nerf may cause how about some of these options instead:
Instead of limiting the number of items on the vendor in bags to reduce the use of vendors as storage how about reducing the price cap. I mean how many things do you have that are going to sell for 100mil credits? By just dropping a digit you can cap the price of things to 10mil. IMHO this is more than enough to sell just about anything and at the same time is low enough that people will think twice about storing their valuables at that price. Granted there are loot drops that are worth more than this but how many people are going to just drop them on their vendor for a set price. Most will auction them off.
Another possibility is to bring back the increasing cost of vendor maintenance based on the price of the items on the vendor. By doing this you can make it cost prohibitive to store bags of items for 100mil. Even if the cost is justa few thousandcredits a day for each 100mil of items on the vendor, which looks like chump change to many people, it will at least make it more cost effective to just drop another house or factoryinstead. What could be done to make it even more useful is to make the cost scale according to the price. That way the cost would be very low for anything less than a mil, relatively low for things priced from 1-10mil, and very high for anything priced over 10mil. This will put less of a burden on the real merchants and allow for a heavier burden for those that are just storing stuff at 100mil. In addition to all this it would give at least a little more meaning to the efficiency line as you will get discounts on the vendor maintenance.
Well thats about it and this is getting long anyway.
SeraphinAnnie
Wed Aug 25, 2004 8:47 pm
#125
I agree with you to a point Duckfat. But, one thing:
The bags countings towards item cap on vendors isn't really an attempt to prevent storage on vendors.
I agree that putting a monetary cap on vendors, 10 mil would be good, would be a pretty good way of preventing and/or decreasing the storage use of vendors.
But, as I said, I don't think it's about that.
The main reason for the bags counting is simple: 4000 items x 50 is 200,000. That would make vendors virtually limitless. Which then completely defeats the whole purpose of putting item caps on vendors to begin with. They don't want people to use workarounds to get more space. They want hard limits, as their goal is to lesson the strain on the database. They can't accomplish that goal if they allow full backpacks to continue to only count as 1. Just that simple.
I do agree that they should provide another way for people to bundle items. The "box" idea is one I like and would support fully. Limited use boxes of like 10 items each, cap on how many you can have on your vendor at once, but that only count as 1. That would also greatly help the issues of offering full batches of components to other people's vendors somewhat. You'd still be limited on it, but it would be easier than the current proposed changes will be.
Nofi
Thu Aug 26, 2004 2:07 am
#126
been surfing this while server is down... really am shocked at the abuse some of youare giving DocSavag. This may be a game but it effects RL feelings. Ppl have enough stresses going on in RL and shouldn't have to take abuse about game stuff. Maybe i'm not happy with the changes, maybe I am.. but it's alot more productive to talk rationally about it.
MeciniaLua
Thu Aug 26, 2004 5:43 am
#127
I see the backpack issue being necessary as is stated, 50 x 4000 = 200000 items which in essence is not a limit.
I'm a master chef among other things and I don't use my vendors for storage ( and even if I did I'd come in well under 4000 items...as I'm a master merchant as well. )
The limit will really only hurt those who have done cross server lot switches. Where they drop 30 heavies and load up on good resources. Its basically cornering the market, which in essense is one sign of a monopoly. This won't end cross server trades but will make them less efficient than they are now. ( And once the character wipe is done in october there will be many you traded lots that will be feeling the sting as stuff disappears. )
At the same time I do relise that there is a severe limit on the items that buildings can hold. It is ridiculous that a PA hall that takes 9 lots can't hold more than a Large House. I think that they should as part of this deal increase the holding of all player structures to 75 items per lot. This would create less strain than the 200000 item limit.
On the same part I don't think Armrorers should be excepted from the 4000 item limit.......that's pretty close to 400 suits of armor that could be up for sale at once...well within reason.
A monetary cap would hurt crafters more than an item limit. Lets say the Armrorers again....at a 20 million cap as someone said that's what only 50000 per suit....and that's not worth it for an Armoror. My character on Radiant, Enoorea finds that for composite armor each piece is around 50k. This would drastically affect them more than the item cap. Thus I'd suggest not pushing for an credit limit on vendors if I was the crafting community. ( Cher's lets see on Wanderhome good brandy goes for around 150k a crate, on Radiant really good can be as high as 250k....so lets see that's not a lot of product with the cap either, Radiant you'd get aroun 80 crates.....Wanderhome around 120 crates....that's not a lot folks....especially for the big chef movers which I'm not...and I'm not by choice...my vendors are off the beaten track. )
Besides the effort to increase the amount of items in buildings we could also introduce a new type of storage. A backpack type series of items that work in houses, called cabinets.
Architects would make them. And there would be a limit to the number that could be in a house perhaps just one or perhaps 2. The basic cabinet would hold 25 items, then Cabinet 2 would hold 50 items, then Cabinet 3 would hold 75 items, and finally cabinet 4 would hold 100 items ( Cabinet 4 would come with Master Architect ). Since the contents of packs and cabinets do not load until they are looked in this would cause less server strain than making the houses and such just hold more items. Plus it would give architects a good high billing item ( I mean wouldn't you be willing to pluck down a couple hundred thousand for an extra 100 item storage. )
Anyhow just some points and ideas I had this morning.
LadyGrey
Thu Aug 26, 2004 6:49 am
#128
Just as a rough guess, there are at least 600 different specifically-named resources. These resources spawn in an infinite variety of different flavors, with a new one appearing about every 7 to 10 days. On top of that, they don't ever repeat. If there can be an infinite variety of resources, then crafters need an almost infinite amount of storage space. Simplify the resources to fair, good and excellent, and allow them to stack depending on those qualities, and you would have 600 * 3 = 1800 different specifically-named resources. In that case, crafters could live with limits on their storage, and you wouldn't have the long-term crafters with a large edge on the new crafters. Just have the excellent resources not spawn as often as fair and good resources. With this system, you wouldn't have to hoard resources as much, and new excellent material would stack onto old excellent material.
Well, not that any of that would happen. We are locked into this cumbersome system. But didn't anyone at Sony start adding up the numbers of having this type of resource system? If something really good spawns, I will go out and get as much as I can, and then try to make it last as long as possible, because in some cases the resources I dug up 8 months ago have not been equaled since. That means that I have the edge on all of the crafters who have joined since that time.
Maybe Sony should just wipe all of the databases clean. Get rid of everything in the game, and make everyone start over again. Then we would all start out even. Actually, that would be great for my surveying business.
lisasdarren
Thu Aug 26, 2004 7:19 am
#129
LadyGrey wrote:
Just as a rough guess, there are at least 600 different specifically-named resources. These resources spawn in an infinite variety of different flavors, with a new one appearing about every 7 to 10 days. On top of that, they don't ever repeat. If there can be an infinite variety of resources, then crafters need an almost infinite amount of storage space.
Lets go with your figures here, 600 spcifically named resources, most crafts probably need at most 25 specific resources and lets say another25 generic, of those50 differentresources you need, many will be used in only one item and so a single 100k stack can make several thousand items.
So lets say you need to have 100 stacks of 100k of resources to craft for a reasonable period of time? So you need 1 small house for storing resources max. If something better comes along sell your old stuff, as grind if necessary.
Crafters don't need an infinite amount of space as you don't need to keep every single shift of every possible resource, you need a small fraction of them.
Note: I have 30 different AS resources in my AS Pack, thats both named and un-named, to make good ubese and composite and most of the different layers. You don't need that many different resources to be a successful crafter.
Message Edited by lisasdarren on 08-26-2004 03:20 PM
Ragnaat
Thu Aug 26, 2004 7:39 am
#130
This is kinda getting into an ot conversation, but since I'm still reading this thread for some reason I thought I'd interject.... Weaponsmith, when you include all the named and generic resource slots, and the different experimentation needs of each (e.g. Bowcasters need Quadranium steel with high CD+OQ, but APRBs need Quadranium with high HR+SR, and NELs just need high SR) you end up with roughly 150 different resource "slots" you need to fill. Realistically a WS can double or triple that number in resource storage needs when you account for multiple spawns or stacks over 100k.
lisasdarren wrote:Lets go with your figures here, 600 spcifically named resources, most crafts probably need at most 25 specific resources and lets say another 25 generic, of those 50 different resources you need, many will be used in only one item and so a single 100k stack can make several thousand items.
Even tossing out grenades and mines and a few of the rarely or never made guns you're still talking 90-100 diff resources needed.
Message Edited by Ragnaat on 08-26-2004 10:40 AM