Merchant Archive
Thread: Some reasons why vendors should stay after you drop Merchant.
JimerLins wrote:
I don't personally care for analogies much, they tend to cloud the discussion. My position on the matter derives simply from the documentation we possess, such as it is. The skill is described as being able to place vendors, and nothing else. This skill does function as described.
Personal note of amusement: Previously a false analogy was right, good, and logical. An explicit example of a true analogy.... and we no longer care for analogies much. That's alright, I'm prepared to adjusted to changing 'ground' as Tzu would advise.
You may not *like* this. It may not even be a good thing. But it is true that currently, the skill works as documented, nothing more. Analogies can be made and picked apart all day, and only serve to distract from the simple point that the skill is described using a certain phrasing, and the skill works true to that phrasing.
Firstly, we're not looking at one specific skill, we're looking at the entire skillset as has been noted before. Secondly, since the other skills in that tree further specify that those skills allow additional vendors, being able to possess additional vendors without having that skill would render the skill description invalid. Hence, not functioning as described.
Dismissing such things as "semantics" is inappropriate, because it assumes a level of knowledge about the intention behind the feature that I don't think anyone who is not a developer has.
Hrm. It is a semantical distinction to state that a skill under the vendor management line only deals with the 'placement' of vendors and not in the management of the same. It is a semantical argument because if focuses on the wording of one specific item, and obfuscates the context in which that item is listed.
Additionally as others have stated, the Devs are looking for ways (by their own words) to address the situation because people should not be able to do so, to state that we are assuming anything is to ingore the evidence of their own posts.
The question that is far more appropriate is whether this should be changed or not. It is manifestly not an exploit, and it is not a bug. It may be a game mechanic that should be changed, but that does not make it an exploit or bug.
Yes, your point? My position has not been that this is an exploit or a bug, my position has been that this is a bad thing, an unforeseen circumstance of how the skill was set-up in the game and something that needs to be addressed. Please do not ascribe to me, arguments that I have not made.
BTW: If it is an 'assumption' to state that the devs did not intend for it to work as it does, despite their statements to the contrary, than I ask you to point to me evidence that they wished you to .retain. additional vendors after the skill had been lost. After all, you would be 'assuming' that 'place' means 'retain' which is quite inappropriate.
BoberFett wrote:
JimerLins wrote:
The question is whether this is a problem or not. Personally, I don't think so. Others may not agree, that's their prerogative. If I were to drop Master Merchant tomorrow and keep my vendors, there is one thing that I could not do- move my vendors. If I decided I wanted to move, change the layout of my shop, or simply start offering some new products, I would be unable to.
My feeling is that keeping vendors after dropping the skill is not a major issue, and shouldn't be regarded as an exploit or even a bug. I would much rather see more incentives given to merchants to keep their master status than penalties used to prevent them from dropping it.
If people having vendors beyond their Merchant skills isn't a problem, why not give 6 vendors at Business 3? Why make them go through merchant at all?
Orthagonal to the issue, but I suppose it's a valid question. Why don't you tell me? My feeling is that merchants should be able to do more than place pretty vendors and get minor discounts on maintenance. This whole discussion is about something exceedingly minor and serves to distract us quite nicely from the big picture, because when you look at Merchant as a whole, there really is very little incentive to get or keep the class.
Me, I like my vendors being able to talk, but not everyone cares about that. But as a downside to dropping merchant, I could never change what they say again, and that is something I see as a benefit- I tend to change that a lot.
Eola wrote:JimerLins wrote:
I don't personally care for analogies much, they tend to cloud the discussion. My position on the matter derives simply from the documentation we possess, such as it is. The skill is described as being able to place vendors, and nothing else. This skill does function as described.Personal note of amusement: Previously a false analogy was right, good, and logical. An explicit example of a true analogy.... and we no longer care for analogies much. That's alright, I'm prepared to adjusted to changing 'ground' as Tzu would advise.
Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said anything about his analogies, and simply referred to his arguments. I actually had intended to say that he relied too much on analogy, and clouded the discussion, but neglected to do so.
I stand by what I've said, and I did not endorse anything but the basis of his arguments. Your derision is misplaced and ill-used.
JimerLins wrote:
The question is whether this is a problem or not. Personally, I don't think so. Others may not agree, that's their prerogative. If I were to drop Master Merchant tomorrow and keep my vendors, there is one thing that I could not do- move my vendors. If I decided I wanted to move, change the layout of my shop, or simply start offering some new products, I would be unable to.
Incorrect. Since there is nothing keeping you from offering a new line of products to your vendor. While you couldn't change the name of your vendor, you could certainly stock it.
My feeling is that keeping vendors after dropping the skill is not a major issue, and shouldn't be regarded as an exploit or even a bug. I would much rather see more incentives given to merchants to keep their master status than penalties used to prevent them from dropping it.
It would appear obvious, as this thread rounds page 5 and heads for page 6 that several Merchants DO consider it a major issue. Personally any time that you can retain the benefits of a skill while no longer having the skill I'd find seriously worrisome.
Eola wrote:
JimerLins wrote:
The question is whether this is a problem or not. Personally, I don't think so. Others may not agree, that's their prerogative. If I were to drop Master Merchant tomorrow and keep my vendors, there is one thing that I could not do- move my vendors. If I decided I wanted to move, change the layout of my shop, or simply start offering some new products, I would be unable to.Incorrect. Since there is nothing keeping you from offering a new line of products to your vendor. While you couldn't change the name of your vendor, you could certainly stock it.
My feeling is that keeping vendors after dropping the skill is not a major issue, and shouldn't be regarded as an exploit or even a bug. I would much rather see more incentives given to merchants to keep their master status than penalties used to prevent them from dropping it.It would appear obvious, as this thread rounds page 5 and heads for page 6 that several Merchants DO consider it a major issue. Personally any time that you can retain the benefits of a skill while no longer having the skill I'd find seriously worrisome.
Since I keep seperate products on different vendors, I could not offer a new line of products using the method I do now. I stand by what I said.
And as to the second point, argumentum ad numeram is not a good one. Being in the majority does not make you right, nor does it make my opinion as a Master Merchant less valid. I don't require anyone's approval for my opinions, and I have no problem at all holding an opinion the majority does not hold. You may find it worrisome, I do not, and have not seen any arguments thus far that have changed my opinion on the matter.
JimerLins wrote:
Orthagonal to the issue, but I suppose it's a valid question. Why don't you tell me? My feeling is that merchants should be able to do more than place pretty vendors and get minor discounts on maintenance. This whole discussion is about something exceedingly minor and serves to distract us quite nicely from the big picture, because when you look at Merchant as a whole, there really is very little incentive to get or keep the class.
Me, I like my vendors being able to talk, but not everyone cares about that. But as a downside to dropping merchant, I could never change what they say again, and that is something I see as a benefit- I tend to change that a lot.
In the mood of switching ground I'm with the other Bober on this one. We have a second skill that is identical in reading to the skill for vendor placement. It allows the 'PLACEMENT' of merchant tents which would seem, in you interpretation to mean there is no reason why a non-merchant should not be able to own one.
Yet they can't be transferred to those without the skill. This would seem to be inconsistent behavior between two skills that have the same wording. So would it be your position that the merchant skill is bugged, and that someone who had efficiency IV then dropped it should be able to recieve the transfer of a tent? Since I'm sadly certain there's a good chance they'd be able to keep one that they'd already dropped.
JimerLins wrote:
Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said anything about his analogies, and simply referred to his arguments. I actually had intended to say that he relied too much on analogy, and clouded the discussion, but neglected to do so.
I stand by what I've said, and I did not endorse anything but the basis of his arguments. Your derision is misplaced and ill-used.
His arguments were based entirely on the analogy that Vendor placement was the same as training in the command '/transfer' and so were refuted along the same footing. If your commentary was that his arguments were worthwhile, and his argument was an analogous one, precisely how were you not supporting that analogy?
Ahhh.. nevermind.
Additionally, I wasn't using you as a target for derision. I said it amused me, so if anything I was using you as a source of personal amusement. Similar, perhaps, to a clown. Now that, would be derision.
Eola wrote:
JimerLins wrote:
Orthagonal to the issue, but I suppose it's a valid question. Why don't you tell me? My feeling is that merchants should be able to do more than place pretty vendors and get minor discounts on maintenance. This whole discussion is about something exceedingly minor and serves to distract us quite nicely from the big picture, because when you look at Merchant as a whole, there really is very little incentive to get or keep the class.
Me, I like my vendors being able to talk, but not everyone cares about that. But as a downside to dropping merchant, I could never change what they say again, and that is something I see as a benefit- I tend to change that a lot.In the mood of switching ground I'm with the other Bober on this one. We have a second skill that is identical in reading to the skill for vendor placement. It allows the 'PLACEMENT' of merchant tents which would seem, in you interpretation to mean there is no reason why a non-merchant should not be able to own one.
Yet they can't be transferred to those without the skill. This would seem to be inconsistent behavior between two skills that have the same wording. So would it be your position that the merchant skill is bugged, and that someone who had efficiency IV then dropped it should be able to recieve the transfer of a tent? Since I'm sadly certain there's a good chance they'd be able to keep one that they'd already dropped.
Actually, I wouldn't have a problem with /transferstructure allowing someone with Efficiency IV to transfer a merchant tent to someone. Heck, I'd like to be able to do this as a service and charge rent!
An interesting idea, actually. Drop the tent, set a "rent fee" of x credits per day, then /transferstructure to someone who is willing to pay the rental fee as part of structure maintenance. It's their building after that, but you get that maint fee as long as it exists, even if they transfer it to someone else. The current owner could destroy it, of course, and you would no longer get the rent. But as long as it stood...
I like that idea.
Eola wrote:JimerLins wrote:
Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said anything about his analogies, and simply referred to his arguments. I actually had intended to say that he relied too much on analogy, and clouded the discussion, but neglected to do so.
I stand by what I've said, and I did not endorse anything but the basis of his arguments. Your derision is misplaced and ill-used.His arguments were based entirely on the analogy that Vendor placement was the same as training in the command '/transfer' and so were refuted along the same footing. If your commentary was that his arguments were worthwhile, and his argument was an analogous one, precisely how were you not supporting that analogy?
Ahhh.. nevermind.
Additionally, I wasn't using you as a target for derision. I said it amused me, so if anything I was using you as a source of personal amusement. Similar, perhaps, to a clown. Now that, would be derision.
No, his argument was that the feature was working as described. The analogies came later in the discussion. I did read the thread fairly carefully before weighing in. The only thing I said was that his argument was cogent and his examples (citing the documentation, such as it is) were correct. As I said, I meant to include something about overuse of analogies, but failed to do so.
Regardless, insults don't help, and although they certainly don't bother me, if you have to resort to them instead of actually debating the point, I will consider the point conceded.
"OH MY GOD
BRAIN DEAD
When you drop slicing do the items you've sliced suddenly become unsliced?"
No you idiot they do NOT become unsliced, but you cannot continue to slice can you? NO. However, when one drops the Vendor +1 skill, guess what they can still do! THEY CAN STILL SELL FRIGGING GOODS ON THEIR VENDORS! THEY CAN SELL AS MANY AS THEY FRIGGING WANT FOR AS MUCH AS THEY FRIGGING WANT! Do you NOT COMPREHEND THE PROBLEM THIS PRESENTS? DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS THE BENEFIT OF THE SKILL! NOT THAT THE VENDOR IS STANDING THERE BUT WHAT THE VENDOR DOES! IF I DROP SLICING I CAN'T KEEP GETTING THE BENEFITS OF SLICING GUNS BECAUSE I CAN'T CONTINUE TO SLICE GUNS WHICH IS THE BENEFIT! A SLICED GUN DOES NOT CONTINUE BRINGING IN REVENUE! A VENDOR DOES! DO YOU FRIGGING UNDERSTAND NOW! YOUR EXAMPLE IS WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG.
JimerLins wrote:
No, his argument was that the feature was working as described. The analogies came later in the discussion. I did read the thread fairly carefully before weighing in. The only thing I said was that his argument was cogent and his examples (citing the documentation, such as it is) were correct. As I said, I meant to include something about overuse of analogies, but failed to do so.
Regardless, insults don't help, and although they certainly don't bother me, if you have to resort to them instead of actually debating the point, I will consider the point conceded.
I'll point out that I didn't insult you, I cited an example of the difference between derision and amusement. Personally I don't really see there's any point to further debate since at this point you're not arguing the issue you're arguing the method of arguing the issue. Additionally by ignoring the pointed examples where there are clear conflicts with your position you make it clear that your purpose isn't discussion to resolution, it's weighing in with one more piece of rhetoric than the next person.
And .that. is a waste of my time.
I haven't read the full 6 page flamefest so my apologies if I'm repeating others arguements on this issue.
(To to put this in context - I'm a filthy 'dabbler' who is getting to vendors I simply to set up a shop - after that I will be dropping the entire artisan line completely.)
I think the issue comes down to what the devs intentions in regards to gameplay. It's either:
1.) Encourage the players interest by getting them to invest in the various professions and then move on to another. (Evidence for this: Holocrons. Need I say more!)
2.) Force people to select a profession(s) and stick to it (them) - so making characters defined by profession. (Evidence for this: The row about 'dabblers' in the CH profession and subsequent changes)
3.) A combination of the aims above.
IMHO it's currently option 3 - but only the devs know for sure.
Being allowed to keep vendors encourages people to 'play' with the Merchant profession, at least for a while, in order to set up shops. This 'feature' encourages everyone to set up trading posts whatever thier final profession and providing an outlet and another 'aim' within the game.
The downside is that at first glance Merchant becomes a 'transient' profession which people will take up and drop once they have thier vendors, map-listing, etc. with no apparent advantages for hanging on the the profession and playing a full blooded merchant.
So, let's look at what happens now and what might happen if the 'feature' were removed.
As it is now there are many,many player run shops and a very lively player run economy. This was obviously the intent (no NPC traders!) and works pretty well. Pretty much anything can be bought if you hunt around for it. I have a real incentive to make and supply a wide range of BE/CH supplies to attract people to my shop - there is a real incentive to explore and produce those 'rare' items sincxe I know there is a ready market for them and selling them will be relatively straightforward.
Now what would happen if the 'feature' were removed and only artisan/merchants could operate vendors?
Well, the only people operating shops would be merchants. The merchant skill would have a real value and PA's would have a real incentive to promote a 'guild merchant' to sell thier members wares. It's likely that trading outside the bazaar would be restricted a a limited number of big malls, unlike the 'corner shops' we have now (but these malls would sell everything!).
The question here is which would be the 'better' model from a game-enjoyment point of view? Each has it's advantages and disadvantages and radically affect how the player economy works and the flow of trade.
For my own part, using the current 'feature' I will be opening a shop and supplying a wide range of goods to anyone who drops by the shop. I have an incentive to produce everything in the BE line since I can put the whole lot up for sale easily and with the minimum of hassle. I'll be doing this for the joy of running my own business!
If the 'feature' were to be dropped I will still be selling stuff and making money.
BUT:
I will be producing a very limited line of goods that will only be sold direct to bulk 'users' in large quantities(tissues for Tailors), sold via the bazaar (a few stims in small quantities) or single high value items (high level pets sold on coronet). I will be doing that only when I need the cash (and I have respectable bank balance already 
). Forget low level pets, camping kits, petfood and all the other stuff I currently sell that has buyers but a really low profit margin. I won't be making or trading in those at all.
I could try and find a merchant to sell my wares (at a loss to the 'middleman') over a number of outlets - but why bother when I can make all the cash I need just by selling this limited line?
The question the devs have to ask themselves is which will be the 'better' model for the game as a whole?
For me personally the 'feature' enhances my game experience and allows me to sell cheap 'trivial' items to people working thier way up the lower ends of the professions (amoung my biggest sellers are level 10-15 pets to people working thier way up CH) - presumably enchancing thiers too!
I can quite understand however how the feature is very frustrating to anyone who wants to become a Master Merchant and stick at the profession (although you ought still to be able to do this - I've never seen anyone encouraging people to sell stuff to thier vendors, despite there being a ready market for, for instance,creature products where anyone who can build big enough stacks of creature products can make a killing!).
Just my pennyworth - I don't think there is an 'obvious' solution (hence all the flames). On balance I think the current 'feature' is beneficial to the game as a whole. Of course people will disagree and I respect that, there are equally valid arguements on both sides!