Merchant Archive

---

SargusQuintek wrote:

That is your opinion and one I will argue is a minority opinion. I see your a crafter in your byline so there is something you are using as a storage or you are not running vendors. A crafter has a serious disadvantage when using storage. I have tailor ingredients such as leather portions lying around that I will need when I get schematics.

Yes I am using houses as storage, at the moment i am running out of room, so what am i going to do? sell/ destroy the least useful stuff i have. And those leather portions your hoarding until you get schematics (i assume you mean looted ones?) why not sell them to someone who does have the schematics and then once you get the schematics buy some more leather to use?

I want resource stacks changed and similar serial numbers on all items stackable for simplicity and a time saving tool. It takes a long time to sort through the resource stacks to find the resources that match. If all of them stacked into one pile it would save me time. The same goes for searching serial numbers on these leather portions.

I agree that stacking items to make life easier would be great, i would love to see this implemented and it still might be, however just becaus ethey are in stacks doesn't mean that they take up less slots in your inventory.

YOU may not need the storage update but others do. What is fun to you may not necessarily be fun for the next person. Yes there are rules for the game and it is those rules we wish to change on this topic. By the way it is the "hiring lots from other players" that has all the artisans in an uproar and wanting harvestor certifications. So your so called legitimate tactic is not so legitimate to them. As I said, one person's opinion is not always the next person's. It is funny you pick and choose what to call legitimate. My personal opinion is if the game allows it then it is legitimate until it is changed so you can't. If people want to use vendors as storage so be it. So as you can see we differ in opinion.

Its the in game hiring of lots from others that has the artisans in uproar? and there was me thinking it was the practice of lot swapping tat had them upset, my mistake.

Legitimate is easy... Vendor (look it up) issomeone or thing that sells goods or service,no where in that description does it say it is used for storage, therefore storage is not the intended use for it.

Lot swapping is not legitimate, its exploiting the way the game works to get round the rules of the system. Hiring lots from others who actually play on your server is just spending money for a product (like hiring warehouse space) and is quite legitimate.

Oh and yes if people want to lot-swap, use vendors for storage etc that is fine until the devs decide to say it is an exploit, i personally think that using a vendor for storage is not within the spirit of the game and will therefore endeavour not to do so. And i will argue my POV on these forums.

Lol. Storing things on vendors is NOT going to lead to a vendor nerf. I repeat, NOT. How many times do I need to say this before it sinks in? Most people in general do not store 1000s of items on vendors. Yet, MANY people DO sell 1000s of items on vendors. which do you think is causing more of a database problem? Aside from the fact that you can never say it is a bug/exploit for the simple fact that vendors are still working correctly and the item can be bought so it is never actually being 'stored' -- just overpriced. And there just aren't as many people 'overpricing' their items as there are with thousands upon thousands of items for sale.

laugh all you want. It is not speculation. Vendors work 100% correctly in this regard. You cannot program a computer to read people's minds, hence you can never get rid of vendors as storage as they are set up now.

How many times do I have to explain this to people? Do any of you actually think this through? Regardless if the item is overpriced, the very fact that you CAN overprice items is specifically and intentionally CODED IN. That was done because it IS a player driven market. And no matter what price you put on an item, it can STILL be bought. It is really very simple.

Just for an RL example.. Havent you ever been to a collectors shop where you see things that have prices that are incredibly high for things most people would consider junk? Well, that is essentially what this allows people to do. If it also lets things float in limbo for a while without taking up storage space, that doesn't matter, because it cannot count as 'storage' when the item can still be bought by anyone with enough credits.

What will lead to a nerf MUCH faster than anyone storing items on vendors, is the fact that 'true' merchants have 1000s of items on each of their 6 vendors. THAT will lead to database problems far more quickly than anything else.

It is my understanding that the DEVs that worked on SWG came from UO, at least a few of them. They should have known that vendors were means of storage because it was done alot in UO. If they want to fix the problem of storage then they can just inact the fix they put in UO. They can start charging a percentage amount of the total price on each item sold on a vendor as part of it's maintenance. Then those people who overprice an item so it doesn't sell will be paying dearly for its storage. For all those crying for more merchant abilties there can be some discount for some skill line.

Like you said, we don't know the numbers. But we also don't really need to. Considering I can go into any shop that has overpriced items and consider them 'stored' if I so choose, even though they might just be a little bit over the going rate. And, what DEV is going go go through all the vendors in the game and decide which items are just WAY overpriced, which are just slightly overpriced, which are kinda in the middle... It just isn't going to happen. The most they could do is search for items on vendors with 9999999999999 or however many 9s are allowed and see how many of those come up. I bet there would be quite a few across all the servers, but it still doesn't take away from the fact that vendors themselves are working as intended, and even that 99999999999 item could still be bought if someone wanted it bad enough. So, to sum it up once again, you cannot separate stored items from items meant to sell, because in the eyes of the code they are one and the same. Any item on a vendor can be bought, so any item on a vendor cannot ever be classified as 'stored'.

And the issue in this topic is vendors as storage, not poached vendors as storage. Poached vendors in general will supposedly be the way of the past. And yes, that should help the database. But not as much as limiting the number of items on vendors.

Ham and cheese please

Songe, you post as if what you or I or any other individual's post is going to be heard. You seem to always post in absolutes as if what you are saying is going to happen. The DEVs don't seem to listen to any individuals and only rarely to the masses. It takes screaming to be heard and them you might be able to hope for a change.

I still think the DEVs do a good job in this game. I came from UO where DEVs never and I mean never fixed bugs. All they ever did was push forward with more untested ideas. SWG is nice that most of the core systems work properly. There are bugs but they are not that bad. Plus most of their publishes contain alot of fixes. DEVs will always try to please the majority and they can't address every single issue people want handled. There are what 36 profession forums and many other forums such as core systems? In every single forum there is someone complaining about something wrong. The merchant profession is not widely used so do you think this is a hot topic for the DEVs? Data storage is an issue I assume from the postings I have read. That is something that is important to them. So they will seek solutions to resolve that issue. Most of the posts I see from the majority is to increase resource stacks. There are alot complaining that is a temporary fix. I assure you any fix will be temporary as people will always seek to maximize their storage capacity legally or illegally. The later part being in regards to others' opinions.

---

SargusQuintek wrote:

The merchant profession is not widely used so do you think this is a hot topic for the DEVs?

---

---

DragonScout wrote:
Lol. Storing things on vendors is NOT going to lead to a vendor nerf. I repeat, NOT. How many times do I need to say this before it sinks in? Most people in general do not store 1000s of items on vendors. Yet, MANY people DO sell 1000s of items on vendors. which do you think is causing more of a database problem? Aside from the fact that you can never say it is a bug/exploit for the simple fact that vendors are still working correctly and the item can be bought so it is never actually being 'stored' -- just overpriced. And there just aren't as many people 'overpricing' their items as there are with thousands upon thousands of items for sale.

---

LMAO

Well this is speculation.

Any merchant that has thousands of over priced itmes on their vendor that dont sell and does not look to see why they dont sell (and keeps adding btw) is not being much of a merchant.

Yes it will lead to a nerf. The devs have stated that they need to lessen load on the item database and were looking at that specifically.

Many people use vendors as storage which was never intended.

Many people use factories as storage which was never intended, but there is atleast a cap on those.

Trust me if this merchant fix does not help the problem as they monitor it, thosewill befirst places they will look to make a change. That type of change will really hurt some professions like tailor that typically have large numbers of items and the stock does rotate out.