Merchant Archive
Thread: Some reasons why vendors should stay after you drop Merchant.
Attikus wrote:
Took a few days off, came back hoping that maybe an ounce of reason, common sense.... or god forbid, reading comprehension.... had inserted themselves into these debates, and although I knew it was a longshot, I cant help but be dissapointed. Well, there were a few short moments of clarity and potential progress, but they were quickly squashed by the usual suspects.
And then I read about how our top 5 was ignored and we were fed what amounts to a few cheap nerfs... and I cant help but think..... Is it really suprising? Its exactly what I said would happen several times. Whine that a working game mechanic isnt working, and you will be ignored. Offer comprhensive ideas and suggestions about why that game mechanic should be changed, and you may catch an ear or two.
And then I got to thinking, as frustrating as it is that a vocal minority of the Merchant Community lacks the ability to understand the very simple points I was making about game documentation and skill mod mechanics.... by focusing on those minor points specifically I was contributing to lead us away from the real questions that should be asked repeatedly until we get action.
***How can we structure and improve Merchant so that retaining skill points in this Proffesion is worth while?***
It is what?.... 6 months into this game? And we still do not have a comprehensive, coherant, analytical state of the proffesion. At least not one that I could find. The sticky is pathetic.
This should be step one. We need to re-do that sticky. It needs to include a substantial write up of bugs, a large community wish lists that reflect a general consensus, and where it does not reflect a general consensus it should be noted, it need to include a well thought out top 5 list....
When I was a ranger - their state of the proffesion was a document of some length and detail that would put ours to shame. And ya know what? They recieved attention.
Of course none of this guarantees action by the devs, and in all honesty it probably only raises our chances of getting what we want by a miniscule amount... but it is a start.
I cant do this, and no one here would want me too.... I dont see any of the major players in this debate as capable of doing it. But I do think Doc could do it and I think we should push him to.
Basically you're telling us that our ideas are stupid, our correspondent is stupid, that it is our fault that the devs are not implementing things that we are suggesting, and it is our fault that we were blindsided by a proposed change. Your argument is that our proposed solutions to merchant problems have been ineffectual in gaining attention because they were phrased as "this is a bug that should be fixed" rather than "this is a game mechanic that is working as intended, but detrimental to merchants, and it should be fixed."
Let me quote the original top 5 post:
5. Currently it is possible to give up practically all of your merchant
skills without having to give up the vendors that you received as a benefit
of those skills.
We would like to see some suggested changes that would address this
situation. We agree in principle that Merchant Skills should not be
surrendered without the loss of the benefits of those skills.
Ok, so what have we here? The issue is presented as "currently x is happening" and the result is that the devs agree that changes need to be made.
Well our correspondent wrote the following:
#5. I know this will be controversial but my opinion is that merchant skills are precious. They belong to merchants. If you don't want to spend the skill points you shouldn't be allowed to keep the benefits. That cheapens the skills and is unfair to those who still have the skills points and it is game breaking in that it changes the whole point of the skill point system which is to force you to make tough choices about what you want to do. so my ideas are:
a. If you have only the right to handle 4 vendors then vendors #5 and #6 (in order of placement) become non functional. You can retrieve items, but you can't put more items on, you can't accept offers. A user accessing this vendor should get a message that the vendor is no longer working.
b. Merchant Tents: Any merchant tent owned by a Merchant without Efficiency IV should be charged a punative maintenance rate (200-300 per hour) this would encourage you to either get rid of your tent or get your skill back up to own it.
c. Hiring: Simular to Management if you have vendor that is above your current skill level (Protocol Droid) then that vendor should stop working properly. No Loss of items will happen, but you should NOT have the ability to keep using your vendor without the skill to keep him employed.
Looks like the comprehensive solution the devs were asking for to me.
I don't know what you're complaining about. The devs were presented with a problem that we have. They agreed that it is a problem. Our correspondent and the community proposed a solution.
You may have ideas that differ from the majority of the people on this forum, and that's ok. Don't you dare pretend that your ideas are more worthy because you perceive a deficiency in others'reading comprehension. The disagreement is with your ideas and with your arguments. People who disagree with you are not automatically stupid.
Our correspondent is doing a great job. His posts, as I quoted above, hit the nail on the head. If the devs aren't paying attention, that does not indicate a deficiency in our correspondent. The devs don't always listen, and they don't always fix things immediately, if those things are difficult to fix.
If you think the stickies need to be redone, you do it. Write up a proposal of what you think needs to be fixed, or what the community consensus is. You have same access to the opinions of the community posted on this board as our correspondent. If you want to make a positive contribution and get things fixed in the merchant profession, then contribute positively instead of calling all of us retards and then demanding that laudable work be redone to your specifications.
Attikus
I've proven you and your semantics to be incorrect. Suck it up and admit that you're wrong.
This won't help the thread much, but I'm trying to throw out another perspective:
A tailor makes a shirt and drops tailor. He can still wear the shirt.
A smuggler slices a gun and drops smuggling. His gun is still sliced.
A chef makes a crate of tatooine sunburn then drops chef. Can still drink.
A Bio Engineer makes a CL 10 pet, then drops BE. Can still use pet.
A Merchant creates a vendor then drops merchant. Can still use vendor.
Does it devalue the merchant profession more so than it devalues the others? Certainly. Is it causing database issues with people creating tons of vendors for storage? Probably.
But in terms of the semantics arguement, I think Atikus is right and the skill box clearly says you get the ability to place a vendor. On the other hand, Fett is correct too because the skill box is called "Management" not "Placement" so it is ultimately confusing. What did the devs intend? They haven't told us.
Well this topic has certainly been done over pretty well - but the insults aren't helping either side.
One side says that the exact wording is "Place additional vendor" and nothing to do with operating and hence already placed vendors should be retained once this skill tree is dropped.
However it has already been shown that the same wording, "Place Merchant Tent" does not allow anyone to own an already placed Merchant Tent via a /transferstructure - the new owner must have Efficiency 4.
Even arguing as pedantically as possible on this one ... I simply do not agree to the interpretation that 'Place' and 'Use' are seperate. I do not care that they are defined differently in a dictionary - to rely solely on the exact meaning of a word is weak. It cannot be argued that, in terms of game play, that placing and using of vendors are seperate issues. You can only say this if placing a vendor,without using it has any inherent worth on it's own - which I do not see there being a point of placing a vendor to leave it sitting there, uninitialised. To place a vendor is showing intent to use it. I doubt anyone can say that placing a vendor without using it has it's own merit. Thus, to place and to use are inseperable - reinforced by the fact you cannot transfer a vendor to someone else. It's for you, and you alone.
It has been continuously compared to other by-products of other professions as examples of why vendors should stay even if the owner has dropped the skills required to 'place' them - such as guns don't disappear when a weaponsmith drops the skills to make them, nor does your fancy new haircut go should the image designer who did it decides for a change of career. I have to say that this is a flawed comparison as a gun, or a haircut, are outputs of a profession. Vendors are core to the merchant profession. No one is saying if someone drops merchant skills, the goods sold via vendors will suddenly be unsold, and the money refunded and the items chucked back into the merchant's inventory. That is a more appropriate correlation with saying a weaponsmith's guns don't vanish once a weaponsmith surrenders his or her skills in weaponsmithing - not the vendors disappearing. The vendors are a merchant's tool to exercise his or her trade - they are inherent to the profession.
Working as intended? A bug? An exploit? I ask you this simple question - was itenvisaged by the developers of this game that vendors would become packhorses?
I don't care what you read into thepoint about how it says "Place" or how a schematic stays around or how you try to read the minds of the developers. The spirit of the game, the gist of the rule, that should be as clear as day.
You will never convince me, however eloquently you attempt to dress it up, that this is what they had in mind - a vendor sitting in a public house protected by a 999,999,999cr entry fee (which by the way is a workaround of not having vendors in private bulidings which I think sends a pretty CLEAR signal on the intentions) whose sole existence is to hold 1,429 itemsas personal storage of one player. You look around - people ask about how to manage space - the number 1 solution is to use this exact setup. If it required retention of skill points to keep this resource around I can guarantee we'll see a huge drop in such practices when the BH/CH realises that to keep this umlimited warehouse they'll need to pick up Artisan and a few more boxes within. Even less so if vendors were pushed to Merchant.
Vendors are not meant to be these way.
Kershakk wrote:
Working as intended? A bug? An exploit? I ask you this simple question - was itenvisaged by the developers of this game that vendors would become packhorses?
Where did you find a copy of the design documentation? How did they intend for it to work? Obviously its not working as intended because they are trying to fix it, but how are they trying to fix it? The primary vendor issue now is the item limit and NOT the fact that everyone and anyone can have vendors. Why is that? I don't know, I'm not making assumptions.
BaudGnarly wrote:
This won't help the thread much, but I'm trying to throw out another perspective:
A tailor makes a shirt and drops tailor. He can still wear the shirt.
A smuggler slices a gun and drops smuggling. His gun is still sliced.
A chef makes a crate of tatooine sunburn then drops chef. Can still drink.
A Bio Engineer makes a CL 10 pet, then drops BE. Can still use pet.
A Merchant creates a vendor then drops merchant. Can still use vendor.
That argument does not hold water.
Tailor makes shirt, drops tailor, cannot still make a shirt.
Smuggler slices gun, drops smuggler, cannot still slice a gun.
Chef makes a crate of tatooine sunburn, drops chef, cannot still make a tatooine sumburn.
Bio Engineer makes a CL 10 pet, drops BE, cannot still make a pet.
Merchant creates a vendor, drops merchant, cannot still create a vendor. But he can still use the vendor he did createto it's full capacity.
Out of all those examples above, ONLY merchant allows you to still use the skill after you have dropped the profession. THAT is WRONG.
I took up Novice Architect on a lark. Made a few small houses, a lot of furniture and torches, then dropped it when I needed the skill points to advance in merchant. I can no longer make houses or furniture. But I can still use them. But a house or couch is an emtpy shell. It, in and of itself, has no function or features that enable me to do something to facilitate one of my other professions.
If I were a DE, made a droid, then dropped DE, I could still use the droid, but I cannot make them anymore. If I were a CH, tamed a highCL pet, then dropped CH, I would not be able to call that pet again.
Okay, so there is definitely some disparity in balances here, yes? Some things you can still do and use, some you can't, but only merchant allows you to create, keep and use the special feature benefit that you gained with the profession and skill level required to have it, even after you partially or completely drop that profession.
I dropped from Polearm 4 to polearm 1. I lost the ability to use higher level specials, etc. And my Long Vibro Axe is much less effective. I would be better off now to use a metal staff with a powerup on it. If I drop Master Tailor, I cannot make metal bikinis anymore, or use bright red, blue, orange and magenta. But I can still use all of my level 4 schematics. But if I drop Tailor altogether, I can't make any clothing. Period. I can buy it. I can wear it. But I can't make it.
If you go up to Novice Merchant or even Master, gain your 6 NPC vendors, then drop down to Novice, you should lose those extra vendors and be reset again to having only the choices listed in the Novice Merchant box. If you drop down to Bus 4 or 3, you should lose your ability to use an NPC vendor. If you drop the business line altogether, you should lose the ability to use or place any type of vendor at all.
The devs need to implement a check of some kind that a merchant cannot surrender a skill until all instances of that skill's use by that person has been checked. If you are using a race not allowed in the next level down, or have more vendors in operation than allowed at the lower level, etc., then you should be unable to surrender that skill until you remove the vendor(s).
Is there no common sense left in this world?!?!?! If you give up the skill, you should GIVE UP THE BENEFITS of that skill.
__________________________
I have to disagree on at least one point - Common sense dictates that you DON'T lose the abilities that go w/ the skill. If you learn the trade of carpentry, and you work as a carpenter, but then give up carpentry to become a computer programmer - so long as you keep doing the carpentry as a hobby and keep your skills honed, you won't suddenly find yourself suddenly baffled and confused by circular saws.
I am personally of the opinion that you should be able to retain some benefits from each profession you master. The game does not work that way at this time, and I am not rabidly campaigning for it nor threatening to quit if I do not get my way - but I think that the same logic and common sense you so enthusiastically defend dictate that you don't suddenly forget everything you ever learned by mastering a profession just because you stop doing it as your regular "job". =)
Furthernore I think that the merchant profession provides an absolutely perfect example of the kind of skill that can / possibly should be retained after you stop being a merchant. For a ranger to "remember" how to track once he / she has mastered ranger makes sense. For a master bounty hunter to remember his investigation skills makes sense. For a master doctor to remember how to use a certain level of stim makes sense. I think it should onlywork for people who have mastered advanced professions, and the skills retained should be verylimited - and, as you pointed out, they should make sense. =)
Just my thoughts. I am actually getting ready to start looking at merchant - I am currently a master ranger / master creature handler. I am one of the dreaded "holo" profession types - but only as a sideline. I like my other professions and will undoubtedly keep as much as I can of both ranger and CH as I slowly work my way through the ones I am told I need to open the much-coveted FS slot. =) But I think that you should get more than just a "badge" for the time and effort you put into mastering each profession - Mostly because I think it makes more sense than the alternative.
~Wen
BaudGnarly wrote:
Kershakk wrote:
Working as intended? A bug? An exploit? I ask you this simple question - was itenvisaged by the developers of this game that vendors would become packhorses?
Where did you find a copy of the design documentation? How did they intend for it to work? Obviously its not working as intended because they are trying to fix it, but how are they trying to fix it? The primary vendor issue now is the item limit and NOT the fact that everyone and anyone can have vendors. Why is that? I don't know, I'm not making assumptions.
*raises wookieebrow*
Granted, the issue I iterated thereis the cap.
However, this idea stems from database issues.
Why would there be database issues?
Because there are too many vendors our there holding tons of junk.
Why are there too many vendors out there?
Because they are being retained without any need for skill points invested by the player.
To me they are related. Even apart from that I still believe that vendor retention is tightly related to vendor placement. I already said there is no inherent value in "vendor placement" if not for "vendor use". If you can tell me in why circumstances a person would want to place a vendor but never intialise it (which is a true distinction between vendor placement, and vendor usage) then I would certainly be interested to read your supposition. To place a vendor is to use it as for as I am concerned; vendor placement and vendor usage is synonymous. I realise that they have different dictionary meanings but if those folks so reliant on hiding behind a dictionary would just stop for a moment and have a look at things from a gameplay perspective? That is, yes, to place a vendor and to use a vendor may have seperate physical actions, but in a gameplay perspective, what is the value of the former, without the latter?
Seriously, for you toask me where I got the design documentation to back up my 'assumption' that vendors were intendedfor selling things and not being people's private packhorses - I do not understand why you are pushing that line. It's not a huge stretch of the thought process to assume 'vendors' are for 'vending'. Mrm?
Oh - and as a note (because I did not make it clear), the way the CURRENT system is, I agree w/ the fact that you should not retain the ability to sell things from the vendors after you relinquish your merchant abilities. =) Merchant should not be singled out as the only profession where "exes" get to retain abilities.
However, speaking as someone who is looking at it less passionately because I have not invested a ton of time in merchant yet, I think that an immediate shutdown is somewhat unreasonable. I think the same purpose would be served if you, say, made it impossible to LIST new items in a vendor once you no longer have the requisite skills, but the vendor does not de-pop for, say, 30 days (and you can still sell andretrieve items from it during that time.
Again, just a thought.
~Wen
I am not the correspondant - nor do I want to be. I dont think the stickies (plural) need to be redone, I think the state of the profession sticky (singular) needs to be redone.
"If you want to make a positive contribution...."
Making people actually read the in game documentation provided with our skill mods to learn how they actually work, before they cry exploit, was my first contribution. Then moving us away from crying that something is broke when it is not, was my second - We have essentially re-focused this issue so that we can communicate with the devs about it in some intelligible way. Crying that the skill mod was broke (as sooooo many have) would have gotten us nothing - and HAS gotten us nothing. Why? Because it is not broke.
HOPEFULLY, my third contribution will be pushing the community to demand, of whoever is resposible for it, a comprehensive state of the profession as seen on the forums of other, more successful, professions.
"then contribute positively instead of calling all of us retards"
You wont get fluff from me... a character flaw I freely admit to. I call a spade a spade. And not all of you are retards.
From just starting a crafting character a few weeks ago and now going up the merchant tree, when I found out that people could retain their vendors after dropping their merchant skills I was surprised. The largest thing that bugs me here is the fact that some people have horrible analogies to other professions.
There is no other profession in the game that drops their skill and retains their essential ability.
*Note schematics do NOT count. You can trade and buy schematics without ever ahving any part of the skill that was used to create it.
Combat classes are simple - You drop the skills, you become a less effective combatant.
Crafting Skills are easier - you drop the skills, you don't get to make those items anymore.
Merchant is a unique situation because it is very unique in it's purpose. I'm curiuous and maybe someone can answer this. If a politican gains enough skillpoints to put down trainers in the city, can he retain them after he drops them? That's the most anagolous arguement I can think of.
It's inherently a bad design that vendors are retained after skill points are dropped. Whether it was meant to be that way or not is an unecessary arguement. It simply is bad design and needs to be changed.
Elite_Jedi wrote:
From just starting a crafting character a few weeks ago and now going up the merchant tree, when I found out that people could retain their vendors after dropping their merchant skills I was surprised. The largest thing that bugs me here is the fact that some people have horrible analogies to other professions.
There is no other profession in the game that drops their skill and retains their essential ability.
*Note schematics do NOT count. You can trade and buy schematics without ever ahving any part of the skill that was used to create it.
Combat classes are simple - You drop the skills, you become a less effective combatant.
Crafting Skills are easier - you drop the skills, you don't get to make those items anymore.
Merchant is a unique situation because it is very unique in it's purpose. I'm curiuous and maybe someone can answer this. If a politican gains enough skillpoints to put down trainers in the city, can he retain them after he drops them? That's the most anagolous arguement I can think of.
It's inherently a bad design that vendors are retained after skill points are dropped. Whether it was meant to be that way or not is an unecessary arguement. It simply is bad design and needs to be changed.
The trainers, gardens, banks, and other civic structure are not lost if the politican drops the skill or a politican without the skill to place those items takes office, but the analogy is a bit of a stretch because once they are dropped they don't belong to the Politican any more they belong to the city. The city however can't keep them if it shrinks to a size that doesn't support that feature.