Merchant Archive
Thread: Backpacks on Vendors
lisasdarren
Thu Aug 26, 2004 8:09 am
#131
Ragnaat wrote:
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.
I sort of figured we would have this, i know if i made all the different types of armour i would need more varied resources, there are a number of things to consider:
- Just keep the best spawn, get rid of any lesser stuff, no multiple spawns of the same 'slot'
- Specialise - just make melee, or ranged or whatever
- Accept that if you are planning to offer the whole range you are going to need to take a hit and find more storage, more houses means you'll have to buy more resources but 'ce la vie' as they say or youcould take more merchant skills
Anyhow thats not really the point, i was just saying that you don't need an infinite amount of storage... you only ever need one resource of the type required to do a specific job, this will always give a finite amount of storage needed.
Ragnaat
Thu Aug 26, 2004 8:23 am
#132
you forgot the option of:
And that right there is the number one reason why I am HIGHLY skeptical of any change to curtail storage of any kind any more the it already is.
to bring it around back on topic... Ultimately I really don't have any problems with itms in bags counting against any vendor limits, and I only once used a vendor for storage myself and that was very temporary when I was redeeding the hosue with my vendors (was *not* about to price 300 slice tool crates and a bunch of resources just to repriec them again in a week. However, as I posted earlier, I think there are way too many other things that need to be addressed in terms of storage, stockrooms, offers, vendor interfaces, subcomponent crate sizes, item bundling, etc. etc. before we can even start to talk about a change like this.
- Buy mule/storage accounts and continue working as you are now
And that right there is the number one reason why I am HIGHLY skeptical of any change to curtail storage of any kind any more the it already is.
to bring it around back on topic... Ultimately I really don't have any problems with itms in bags counting against any vendor limits, and I only once used a vendor for storage myself and that was very temporary when I was redeeding the hosue with my vendors (was *not* about to price 300 slice tool crates and a bunch of resources just to repriec them again in a week. However, as I posted earlier, I think there are way too many other things that need to be addressed in terms of storage, stockrooms, offers, vendor interfaces, subcomponent crate sizes, item bundling, etc. etc. before we can even start to talk about a change like this.
Wire3k
Thu Aug 26, 2004 9:00 am
#133
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. 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.
This is EXACTLY the start of the problem. They are attacking this from entirely the wrong end - you start, at the beginning. The economic cycle starts at resources, not distribution or storage.
Not sure about wiping the game clean, but I could see going thru and having a 'trade-in' program where you could trade resources in-hand for the new ones. I'd also recommend going thru all schematics and lowering quantities needed, you could have a lower resource harvest rate at the same time - and the net end result is the same. A tiered system like this would be upsetting to some crafters - Sony tried to make crafting 'skill' = number juggling. Interesting system, some like it, I myself stayed away as much as I could from crafts that were heavily dependent on it - to me it's a royal PITA. You'll have some folks that think that their 'edge' in being a superior craftsman is being taken away - what's really being taken away under this proposal is superior math, or longterm storage ability as an edge, but you'll run up against the same issue merchants had - you are taking away something that they gauged their performance on. Would this be accepted? Good question, you need to ask the weapon, armorsmiths,and docsmainly - and to some extent architects. They could still retain their experimental abilities - but this would streamline both the crafting aspects and storage needs by a large order of magnitude.
The system was built upon massive consumption of resources and mass production. If you wanna change that - it needs to start at the beginning.
Ciirybeccaskyr
Thu Aug 26, 2004 4:28 pm
#134
OditeFosore wrote:
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.
you seem to forget that this is the same comunity represinitive that was telling us we whould be happy with an agregate apx 800 item limit on our vendors and was unable to realize that this would destroy many of the our set ups. I dont want to repalce doc this is just Merchant its a utility prof not a real prof. simply a means to an ends that is required any serious crafter.
Yeah i was a bit pissed when i posted at his inability yet again to grasp the perifial effects of these changes and should not have stated it as clearly as i did but the point remains sound.
badgic
Fri Aug 27, 2004 12:23 am
#135
Taking this from a be point of view as thats what i am now. I see this as a huge inflation maker. i now have to get master merchant as most of my stuff is sold in large quantity's with serial number requirements. now i have to try to locate and buy flora and meat as i have to dump my skillpoints into merchant as well as dump my limited lots into factorys/houses for storage. prices for flora are high to say the least and meat is outrageous. finding either to buy in the first place of any acceptable quantity/quality is near impossable. so now i pay 10 to 30 cpu for flora and 15-50 cpu for meat. my biggest sellers take 20 meat and 60/90 flora and are only requested in factory run quantitys. my current price is 2500 credits per crate for bsn's and 3500/crate for inn's. if i pay 10 cpu for flora = 600000 credits per run and 20 cpu for meat = 400000 and make a run of 40 crates the cost just for resources would equal my current price for the bsn's. add the extra maint. for storage factorys/house maint. ect.. and my cost would rise roughly 25%. making pets goes into a much larger problem with storage and i dont even want to go there lol. add the extra cost to chefs along with their own extra cost for the same reasons as mine and whala your paying 400000 credits for a case of brandy. i might add a much lower level of brandy as we wont be able to store enough good resources to consistantly make good quality items. keeping in mind that all the non merchant vendors will leave so all the peeps with harvs setting out there gathering resources to sell on their left over vendor will be useless. they wont be able to store the excess material to sell on the bizarre so resources will get harder to find and therefore more expensive. also keeping in mind upcoming changes to armor and buff systems the meat will also get much harder to find and also more expensive, meat is already nearly impossable to find in any quantity and the price i show here is the minimum its currently selling at. i deem this as another way for soe to sell more accounts as players who want to be good crafters making good products for a fair price will be forced to get another account minimum to achieve their goals.
By the way didnt soe just hold a major witch hunt baning large numbers of players to keep inflation from hitting the economy?
Someone said to just delete the old resources when new better stuff comes along. so i have 100000 units of flora that cost me 500000 credits to be on the safe side. now a better resource spawns and i buy 100000 units of it, now i delete 500000 credits worth ofthe old stuff? should i pass that cost on to my customers who pass it down to their customers ect...?
KawikaMacGuyver
Fri Aug 27, 2004 1:39 pm
#136
Duckfat wrote:
IMHO that is the purpose of the cap for both vendors and houses, to stop people from hoarding and putting a burden on the db servers. You have to choose what you have room to keep and either use or sell the rest.
These 2 statements summarizes the crux of the delimma, whether you're for or against any or all of the changes.
1) Why are we (the player base)paying the price (again) for the developer's and designer's problems on certain limitations of the game that they can solve without changing our play experience.
2) Whether we like it or not....we still have the ability to choose what we can do to mitigate the situation. (i.e. sell/delete stuff or pick up more merchant skills.)
People will quickly point to number 2 to stop all the complainers. We all make choices in the game...what to do, what skills we want, etc.....but no one likes a choice forced on them to solve a problem when clearly the responsibility for that problem lies elsewhere and the choice should not even have been there to begin with.
Message Edited by KawikaMacGuyver on 08-27-2004 10:40 AM
Elioi
Fri Aug 27, 2004 3:26 pm
#137
This change would not be so bad if offers were increased to 41 - a full run of your average component in a bag. This is going to hit my tailoring components buisness aspect hard (trim for chefs and synth cloth for armorsmiths).
KawikaMacGuyver
Fri Aug 27, 2004 4:04 pm
#138
actually...to make it 'reasonable, i'd have to say at least 100 to accommodate casual players andplayers who live in different time zones.
Elioi wrote:
This change would not be so bad if offers were increased to 41 - a full run of your average component in a bag. This is going to hit my tailoring components buisness aspect hard (trim for chefs and synth cloth for armorsmiths).
Duckfat
Sat Aug 28, 2004 12:50 am
#139
Annie - If you think about it the item cap itself is a measure to stop storage and is most likely notdesigned just to make a limit on how much a merchant can actually sell. I really dont think there are merchants out there that would bundle 50 items in a pack for sale. I mean what is there out there that you would bundle 50 of that does not come out of the factory as a crate? Usually the things that are bundled are things like suits of armor or buff packs or something similar that is really done out of convenience for sale and not to get over the item cap. I mean if it was really an attempt to get over the item cap then you would see people selling packs of crates instead of just crates or puttingtwo suits of armor in a bag instead of just one. The thing is that they are not trying to get over the item cap but just consider the single crate or bagged suit of armor as the basic unit of sale. The only things that you would really put 50 of in a bag are things that you are trying to store.
To the person that argued about the proposed price cap - The price cap is a cap on each item put up for sale and not the total for the vendor. Therefore your example of the armorsmith ending up selling 200 suits for 50k is not what we were trying to propose. We stated that there are not many legitimately bundled items that would sell for more than 10mil and therefore that should be the cap for each item put up for sale. This would restrict the people putting bags of 50 items on their vendor for storage since each item in the bag would need to be worth less than 200k each or someone would just come by and buy it. And since most things that people are storing are usually worth about a mil each (such as their uber loot or 100k bricks of at least 10cpu resources) they would be very limited in how much they could store in each bag. In fact they cannot even store 10 things worth a mil each as someone would probably just buy it anyway since its at fair market value.
To the people arguing about the need to store all the varied uber resources - The resources are meant to be used. I mean what good is it to just hoard them? If you really want to store them then drop a factory and put all your resources in there. That way you dont have to move them when you actually start crafting whatever you are hoarding them for. I mean that is just one lot for 100 bricks of 10k resources which should be enough and if it isnt then drop two. If you are hoarding them for later sale then put them on the vendor seperately at whatever price you are looking to get. The vendor is not a place for you to put 50 bricks of uber resources in a bag for storage. IMHO that is the purpose of the cap for both vendors and houses, to stop people from hoarding and putting a burden on the db servers. You have to choose what you have room to keep and either use or sell the rest.
I like many of you believe that the house storage limits should be increased. However you do not fight that limit by trying to create a higher limit through the vendors. I wish that instead of abusing the vendors that more people would petition for more adequate space in houses. I mean I would really like to decorate my house but as it is I have no furniture because the need for storage outweighs my need for a nice house.
Bobug
Sun Aug 29, 2004 7:14 pm
#140
Hey there... I was wondering if there's been any official announcement / decision on all of this. Namely, I hear 10's going live in a few days, and there's NOTHING on the login news, and I can't find anything in the In Testing or In Live or In Development areas to indicate the OFFICIAL changes.
I need to know how to play things out, and this is fairly chaotic in its handling. Specifically, have the vendor limits stayed to how they were posted on the 21st? Are packs now counting as the total of whatever is inside it (plus the pack)?
I'm cringing at that one quite a bit, given that mastering Doctor and Chef has left me 2 points shy of hitting Novice Merchant, thus capping me out low. With all the components and so on needed for various things I'm selling (and the components themselves), a clear, official, concise answer would assist me (and many others) greatly.
Thank you in advance,
En'ni Ikari, Starsider
Katmer
Sun Aug 29, 2004 8:32 pm
#141
DocSavag wrote:
If you aren't happy with the game..don't play. *shrug* Not sure why you would continue to do something you don't enjoy.
Thanks for the reality check, DocSavag. Seriously... Thanks.
I had been on the bubble of staying in the game, in "survival mode" with the final version of the vendor changes after much heartache.
Then the credit dupe hit, and I got to see the Sony F.U.D. machine in its' full glory, complete with the "ban first and sort it out later" fiasco. I'm not interested in paying to play a game where I have to PROVE my innocence on appeal.
I didn't get suspensions on any of my accounts, but I absolutely gutted my businesses to ensure that it wouldn't happen. This weekend, I faced the prospect of putting it all back together and trying to rebuild my customer base.
And I don't enjoy that. Not at all. It all could have been avoided if they had simply told us up-front that none of the vendors were in danger... but they didn't, until well after the damage had been done.
That's the straw that broke the camel's back, for me. If they care that little about my business, and are willing to let it suffer so that they can sound like tough guys on their crackdown announcements, they frankly, don't deserve my business.
So I cancelled seven of my accounts tonight. An eighth one is pre-paid, and will not renew on expiration. The ninth and final one will remain only long enough to liquidate and distribute all of my holdings to my friends, and then that one will be gone, too. (And before anyone asks... all of my stuff is already "spoken for", so you can't have it. =P )
Will they get the message? I doubt it. As long as there are people willing to put up with this kind of treatment directed at paying customers, the treatment will continue. I'm tired of being a faceless number to Sony. They get no more of my money, not for this game, nor for any other they put out. Ever and ever, amen.
As you so eloquently put it Doc... *shrug*
Life goes on, but for me it will go on somewhere else.
Game Over.
Wire3k
Sun Aug 29, 2004 10:33 pm
#142
I'm about in the exact same position - as I just posted in another thread. Their track record gives me zero confidence the future will be any different, as much as I'd like to think some day they'll wake up - I don't think they will - and they surely won't as long as people keep subscribing and accepting shoddy workmanship and management.
Katmer wrote:
Will they get the message? I doubt it. As long as there are people willing to put up with this kind of treatment directed at paying customers, the treatment will continue. I'm tired of being a faceless number to Sony. They get no more of my money, not for this game, nor for any other they put out. Ever and ever, amen.
As you so eloquently put it Doc... *shrug*
Life goes on, but for me it will go on somewhere else.
Game Over.
DocSavag
Sun Aug 29, 2004 11:38 pm
#143
Wire3k wrote:I'm about in the exact same position - as I just posted in another thread. Their track record gives me zero confidence the future will be any different, as much as I'd like to think some day they'll wake up - I don't think they will - and they surely won't as long as people keep subscribing and accepting shoddy workmanship and management.
Katmer wrote:
Will they get the message? I doubt it. As long as there are people willing to put up with this kind of treatment directed at paying customers, the treatment will continue. I'm tired of being a faceless number to Sony. They get no more of my money, not for this game, nor for any other they put out. Ever and ever, amen.
As you so eloquently put it Doc... *shrug*
Life goes on, but for me it will go on somewhere else.
Game Over.
I'm sorry to see anyone go, but if you aren't happy you shouldn't hang around and make yourself miserable.
I'm still having fun in game and I expect to continue to do so. I think there are some exciting times ahead for this game. Having come from the Correspondant summit just today I am re-energized. There will be details soon but the combat balance will have repercussions for the entire game including the crafting/merchant community. I'm looking forward to that as well as the combat balance itself which will I think will be quite a ride but will ultimately end up making the game better.
I still won't apologize for telling you to go do something else if you aren't having fun. Its just common sense. Have fun with your relaxation activities don't be tortured by them.