Merchant Archive
Thread: Backpacks on Vendors
DocSavag wrote:
Nofi wrote:
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.
Whats wrong with you?? Everyone knows I'm not a real person I'm a volunteer SOE punching bag.
Doc, I agree with Nofi that it's definitely not cool for players to make personal attacks on you. Some may view you as being overly acquiescent to proposed changes to Merchant but even if that's the case that's your right as you may be in agreement, partially or otherwise to vendor limits, backpack item count modification, etc.
I think the frustration comes from the fact that players feel that the profession is being diminished to address SOE's desire to cut down on the cost of storage and that absolutely nothing is beingoffered in return. The recent vendor limit proposal fiascoreally made the Merchants in the game feel that SOE was painfully out of touch with the player's needs in this game or that they simply were intent on adressing their own database concerns without regard to its impact on the function of the game. This annoyed the player base both for the fact that as customers they didn't feel like SOE really cared about them and for the fact that, for many, the proposed changes would prove so limiting, so cumbersome, that being a Merchant would simply not be worthwhile and for some in this game that's what the game is ALL about, just as for some it's PvP and for others it's the pursuit of uberloot.
When the devs woke up and realized that they had stirred up a hornet's nest, the only real option at that point was to do some serious backpedalling. All those kudos, high-fives, and backslapping at the job well done on increasing limits were misplaced as some serious public relations harm was done as a player base felt they were being taken for granted.
The whole process, including the impending backpack item count modification, has left many players frustrated as evidence mounts that the people in charge of this game are either out of touch or simply dismissive of the effects that their actions have on a player's enjoyment of the game. That's a shame because there are a lot of smart people involved in the creation and maintenance of this game and as consumers we have a right to expect better or them.
In the interest of full disclosure, I will plead guilty to being one of those players who has used their vendor for storage. It began out of ignorance but was perpetuated out of a lack of time to find supplemental storage as I had just spent several months accruing resources and components for the opening of my WS business and my game time was preoccupied with getting that venture off the ground.
I'm not going to bellyache about the pack item count change as it will force me to wean myself more quickly away from a storage method that was both incredibly cumbersome for me, and no doubt produced an additional strain on the game systems with the constant loading, system messages, etc as I added items reorganized, etc. It sure seemslikeSOE is only interested in making changes that benefit them, rather than addressing in some way crafter's need for increased storage.
All of this just results in a silly cat-and-mouse game as I move my stored items and into houses dropped by guildmates and friends. I wouldn't mind making a conscious effort to contribute to reducing the number of items I have, but I'd like to see it paired with some constructive changes on the part of SOE. At the very least, they could come out and say something like "Hey, we need to reduce items retained to reduce database size, so we're going to put some limits on vendors, but in exchange we'll find a way to address secure extra storage for crafters and we'll also eliminate/greatly reduce junk loot drops". I think they'd be amazed at the willingness of the community to "partner" up to improve the functionality/viability of the game.
Well - I HAD posted it in another thread - guess someone didn't like my opinion on the state of the game and it's been nuked.
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.
DocSavag wrote:
I still won't apologize for telling [someone] 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.
You shouldn't expect to apologize for advice like that, nor should people expect it from you IMO... it's fundamentally sound advice.
It's important to remember that, above all else, this is a game. We're allegedly paying for an entertaining experience.
The "problem" with just walking away when it seems less than enjoyable comes down to a question of investment. It's a fundamental aspect of MMO games, and one that I am certain that MMO providers COUNT ON in order to maintain their bottom line.
Since it often takes quite a while to achieve anything significant in MMO games, people tend to become psychologically and even emotionally invested in their characters, their accomplishments, and the relationships that they build over a long period of playing.
That sense of investment makes people reluctant to just throw away many, many months worth of progress just because of a change in the landscape that takes some of the fun away.
It comes down to a question of when the changes in the game's landscape and current state represent such a powerful disincentive, that the "unfun" overpowers the pain of losing your investment.
I'm sure the developers count on that "resistance to loss" to get people to stick through many painful changes... but when players start to believe that the fundamental problem may not be the game itself or its current state, but is instead the basic customer-service ATTITUDE offered by the providers... well, you've got a real problem on your hands.
If I felt like the devs respected me as a customer, I would not have cancelled seven accounts yesterday. I don't feel respected, I feel abused.
When the devs originally proposed vendor limits, there was an uproar... and that was eventually left at 150 items per vendor before it was shelved, as I recall. What did they come back with once they took it back off the shelf? A maximum of 110 items per vendor. It's like the original fight had never taken place.
That's insulting. I understand the need to "lock down" the contaminated funds associated with the credit dupe, but there is ZERO excuse for not putting out a detailed explanation along the lines of JustG's latest "apology" THE MOMENT THE BANS HAPPENED, not a week after the fact.
I also see no reason whatsoever to make innocent people "appeal" to get their accounts back when they did nothing wrong. The announcement message should have made it crystal-clear that every single locked-down account would be reviewed by hand without any appeal requests needed, and they should have made sure that those who were innocent were generously compensated for the impact... a minimum of a full free month would have cost them almost nothing, but would have gone a long way in PR value.
Above all, the fundamental problem that I have with this game is not the game itself... it's the absolutely atrocious job of communication, feedback and a general lack of listening to their customers that I've felt building up over the last year. The Devs have managed to convince me utterly that they simply don't care what I (and tens or hundreds of thousands of other players) think. Nothing short of the kind of mind-blowing protest over the vendor limits seems to penetrate, and it should never take that kind of effort to get reasonable accomodations.
If the game I pay to play is going to evolve, I want to have a strong sense that the people who are making those changes are going to work WITH the paying customers to make it better, rather than forcing some "we know best" solution down their throats and fighting them the whole way on reasonable compromises.
When I see bugs going into live releases that had been reported on the Test Center literally MONTHS BEFORE, with no acknowledgement whatsoever, it makes me wonder what the point is of submitting bug reports. Look at the fiasco with vendor listings having names and quantities disappearing as an example. There's no excuse for that to ever go live (and then patched after the fact) when it had been reported many weeks before on TC.
I love the potential that this game has... but I'll be damned if I'm going to give my money to people who are going to repeatedly treat me as a meaningless, know-nothing stream of revenue. They may as well have spit in my face. I don't have the patience of Job in matters like this, and there comes a point where it's just too much.
For me, they crossed that point with their utter PR disaster re: their scare tactics with the credit dupe announcements. I doubt that their chest-thumping and intimidation of innocent players will pay for the revenue stream that they lose... from me and those who feel the same way as I do.
They have successfully "protected my game play experience" right out of existence.
Congratulations.
Message Edited by Katmer on 08-30-2004 04:34 PM
Uh oh, more bait to keep us clinging on for a little bit longer.
DocSavag wrote:
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.
LadyGrey wrote:Doc -We really need a way to package items for selling on vendors. Probably something that can be made by a Master Artisan, or perhaps just part of the Artisan tree. It will have several functions/abilities:1) It can be renamed after it has been made2) It can be "looked into" while on the vendor, so that a buyer can verify the contents3) It can hold up to 50 of any type of item, including stacks of resources, or factory crates4) It can be coded by the seller, as to which filter on the bazaar/vendor it would fall into.We can call this object a BOX. The BOX, when it contains other items,will not count toward being an item on the vendor, but all of the items inside of it will count. A crate of BOXES would count as an item on the vendor, because then it is the BOXES that are being sold, rather than items inside of them.It can be renamed after it has been made, so that buyers can tell by the name what to expect in the BOX.It can be "looked into" so that buyers can verify what they are actually buying, and get away from the problems that exist with putting items into a backpack.The BOX would probably be made out of generic wood, metal, andinert petrochemical. You could even have several sizes of BOX, that could be made at different points in the Artisan tree, that would hold different amounts of items. Could call them ENVELOPE, CARTON, BOX, PACKINGCRATE.The BOX could be coded by the seller, as to which filter on the bazaar/vendor it would fall into. This way the seller could define where buyers would find the BOX (this is especially good since factory crates all go into a generic/factory crates filter designation). You could even put just one factory crate into a BOX, set which filter you want it to have, and thus have a work-around for the bazaar/vendor bug that lumps all factory crates together.As an afterthought, could have one called MOVINGCRATE, which would temporarily allow you to carry more items than usual, to use for moving a house from one location to another. Would only allow one use, and would have a count-down timer for how long it would exist from the time it is activated. Maybe a week or two. Once you have "filled" it, you "seal" it, which doesn't allow any more items. Then you can transport it, as if it is one item, in your inventory. Then you drop it in the new house, and pull everything out. If you don't get something out before the timer is through, the items inside drop into your house or inventory, and if there isn't room for them, they disappear. Would be a great money sink for the artisans to make, since it is one use. And since it would make it easier to move houses around, people would probably do it more.Message Edited by LadyGrey on 08-21-2004 11:25 AM
Great Ideas LadyGrey! great thinking on problem solving. I shudder to think aboit moving my main house due to space constraints. Nice! Too bad they are sooo busy with the nerf bat though, creating seems to be secondary to Devs when it comes to current gameplay...well...except Jedi. At least they are creating in JTl...I hope...or do I get a nerf bat up side the head when I start playing that too, lol
Best regards,
Dray
LaunchpadNoteswrote:
When storing backpacks on vendors, the items inside the backpack will count as one item, but the backpack itself will NOT be counted against the item limit. An empty backpack will count as 1 item.
Super_nice_jedi wrote:
LaunchpadNoteswrote:
When storing backpacks on vendors, the items inside the backpack will count as one item, but the backpack itself will NOT be counted against the item limit. An empty backpack will count as 1 item.
Am I reading that right? In that they are now allowing contents in bags to count as one item, so one bag plus 50 items inside = 1 item to the vendor?
Is it true? I've heard it in a couple of places now and heard 1 confirmation that backpacks currently used as storage are counting as 1 item. If it's true, armorsmiths will be happy, BE's that offer full runs of tissues to chef and tailor vendors will be happy, tailors that offer full runs of trim to chefs will be happy, and rightfully so.
Folks that use backpacks full of items on vendors will also be happy though...oh well is what I say, you still have to have merchant skills to do the backpack on the vendor which is a start and helping out armorsmiths and others that sell sets seems more important in the short run.
Super_nice_jedi wrote:Launchpad Notes wrote:
When storing backpacks on vendors, the items inside the backpack will count as one item, but the backpack itself will NOT be counted against the item limit. An empty backpack will count as 1 item.
Am I reading that right? In that they are now allowing contents in bags to count as one item, so one bag plus 50 items inside = 1 item to the vendor?
Yes, Doc, can you please clarify for us? Thanks
AlphaMaldorian wrote:
I just logged off and I can report the following.
My "bulk loot" vendor in my "crafting area" has 18 Items listed on it.
Of those 18 items, 6 are backpack or satchels containing 7-20 items each.
The commerce interface lists 18 items. The status interface lists 18 items.
So (in my case anyways) it seems that items (up to limit of said container) in a container count as ONE item on a vendor. Case closed.
Have a safe weekend everyone. I'm outta here......
I have been doing some reading and although I have not seen the recent update notes, if I read correctly, I think they have reversed the backpack limit.
Someone is free to correct me on this of course.
I think I read somewhere else that this change is only temporary since not enough notice was given to the community - hence the change will be RE-implemented in 30 days.
Wouldnt mind some clarification from someone ... Doc?
FullContact wrote:AlphaMaldorian wrote:
I just logged off and I can report the following.
My "bulk loot" vendor in my "crafting area" has 18 Items listed on it.
Of those 18 items, 6 are backpack or satchels containing 7-20 items each.
The commerce interface lists 18 items. The status interface lists 18 items.
So (in my case anyways) it seems that items (up to limit of said container) in a container count as ONE item on a vendor. Case closed.
Have a safe weekend everyone. I'm outta here......I have been doing some reading and although I have not seen the recent update notes, if I read correctly, I think they have reversed the backpack limit.
Someone is free to correct me on this of course.
I think I read somewhere else that this change is only temporary since not enough notice was given to the community - hence the change will be RE-implemented in 30 days.
Wouldnt mind some clarification from someone ... Doc?
At this point I have no idea. I was told it would count as the number of items in the bag. There might be issues with it that caused them to pull that. I don't know. I'll ask but at this point communication is a bit scarce.