Merchant Archive
Thread: Dropping skills (NOT another can I keep my vendors? thread :-))
DragonScout wrote:
Merchants keep complaining about exploiters, but the real problem is that there is no benefit to keeping skill points IN merchant -- which is why people drop it.
Kinda tactlessly put, but I do sort of agree.
It's really tough to make Merchant work as a full-time profession, due to the UI issues with reselling and bulk selling (presumably, a full time Merchant would be doing nothing but resale, and in large quantities - a complete UI nightmare with current tools). So to get around this, people who try Merchant out conclude that it's best used in conjunction with mastery of another crafting profession, and they sell their own goods rather than spreading out across the entire market. Given that they've now gone from a Merchant to a master craftsman with a shop, it's small wonder that they don't feel any great attachment to the Merchant profession.
I originally had plans to master merchant, but after futzing around with it for a while, I abandoned the project, finding that my two Novice Merchant vendors and Advertising 3 gave me all the merchant power I needed and more. Seven vendors would have just been seven times as much grappling with the obnoxious UI.
Itty bitty patches aren't going to fix this profession. It needs some drastic loving.
DragonScout wrote:
Until the devs add other options in, like commodities markets or trade routes between cities or anything that encourages game-mechanic-aided possibilities, this profession will never be anything more than a utility profession (in my eyes).
Not everyone agrees with that assessment, of course, but I think the merchant class would definitely benefit from a few more options.
Since you mention trade routes: I've always thought it'd be nifty to tie Merchant in to player missions, especially delivery missions. Imagine being a master merchant and being able to create delivery missions (perhaps requiring a smuggler if the item being delivered was highly valuable or restricted) to get inventory from one side of the galaxy to the other, rather than having to carry it yourself. And then imagine having a nice commodoties UI so you could spend your time tracking the prices of goods on different planets, and sit at the center of a galaxy-spanning hub of trade, directing the flow of credits and commodoties from one end to the other. Mmmm.....
(Some saw Star Wars and immediately wanted to be Luke. I always thought it'd be kinda nifty to be Jabba the Hutt instead. Right now I'm somewhere between Watto and Yoda, running a cruddy little shop at the edge of a swamp, which is fun in its own way.)
Balkstar wrote:
Is it worth 14 skill points? Well, maybe not. But then, there are lots of other skill trees in the game that are all but worthless in and of themselves, so there's a precedent established. This is why I suspect (nay, hope)that the "vendor revamp" might dispense with the tree entirely, give itsbenefits to all vendorsand replace the skill tree with something that has benefits befitting a "merchant" rather than an "interior decorator".
Well that may be in the future, but I'm not a mind reader of the devs, so I'm going to go by what's presented to me now. The branch may be limited, but the fact is that by exploiting, all of the limited benefits of that branch can be recieved for free with no long term skill point cost: 1.The ability to use any type of NPC and droid vendor. 2.The ability to clothe the vendor permenantly in clothes the merchant chooses.
Ah, there's the difference between you and me. You see a skill tree with limited usefulness and a name that reflects that limited usefulness, and assume that the limited usefulness was an accident, and the name that reflects it was just an unfortunate coincidence.
I see the same skill tree and assume that it's functioning (and named) as designed, and that the underlying design was poor.
Personally, I think my assumption stands on much better legs than yours (because it assumes a single failure pointinstead of multiple failure points that neatly match each other), but in the end we're all just trying to read the devs' minds.
Smugglers are getting their Underworld tree (now there's a useless tree if there ever was one)revamped, supposedly, so anything is possible.
Not necesarily useless, especially if you are in a guild. I have been able to provide my guild factional itemswithout grinding countlessfaction missions, which are a total pain. Also when I was PvPing in faction wars way back when, it was nice not to lose a huge lot of faction points when DBed.
The ability to buy faction points is relatively new. Before that, the two benefits of the Underworld tree (if I remember right... I'd ask my smuggler friend, but he quit the game out of disgust over the uselessness of the Underworld tree)were decreased FP loss on death and the ability to speak all languages. The fact that the ability to speak all languages was given as an elite-levelskill (and still is) when every character can know every language (except lekku, and any Twi'lek character knows that regardless of profession) should show you how much thought goes into the usefulness of the skill trees.
Skill usage is what you make of it. What one man's trash can be another man's treasure.
The same statement could be used to argue that Hiring (and Management, for that matter) is perfectly useful and worthwhileeven if it only applies to "placement".
Almost every skill has some use, even if it's only a minor benefit to a very small group of players.
Tell me, Samwise, is your motto," Never let facts get in the way of a good argument?" What you have been arguing is so beyond reality,I really don't think anyone else on these boards can comprehend you. I'm just going to assume that this is the first MMORPG that you and Dragonscout have played, or any RPG for that matter. For we veterans of gaming understand the nature of losing skills means losing all ablilities that can affect how one can succeed in the profession dropped. This may be new to you, so I'll try and go slowly for you.
The only legacies keptfrom the profession dropped are the permanent goods created or gathered by the player in his or her endevors as a member of the profession. For SWG, this only entails prototypes, factory schematics, deeds, mined resources, and loot. Nothing else in this game provided by a profession can be traded tonon-profession individuals, thus can be constitute as an exclusive tool or enhancement for the profession.
As a universally accepted rule in EVERY RPG or MMORPG, the loss of a level or skill set on the character means the loss of the exclusive enhancements and tools of the class or profession to the character.
Merchants tools are primarily vendors. Vendors can be enhanced through the use of various NPC or droid choices, customized clothing, barking and map advertisement. All of which cannot be used by or traded to any non-merchant character in any capacity. How can I confirm this? Anyone who has never put skill points into the skills of Buisnessman or Merchant cannot recieve thebenifitsofa vendor or any ofits enhancements. Even if a character gains a low level of Buisnessman to receive a vendor, the enhancements to the vendors are out of reach.
It has become very clear that although limited, the various branches of the Merchant skill tree do contain advantages. people treasure these advantages and use skill points to gain these tools and enhancments.
Knowing the universal rule of RPG's and MMORPG's stated above, removal of skill points will prevent access to the benefits gained by having skill points locked up in the skills and levels in the first place. A sepcific example would be what you concidered a total waste of skill points: Smuggler Underworld I. The benifit gained in that skill boxis knowing nearly all spoken laguages in the game. If dropped, a player would lose all comprehension of languages not know by the character previous to their skill point allocation into the skill box. As minor of a benefit as it is, it is still a benefit and it is immediately lost once the skill points are realocated elsewhere.
Again, knowing the universal rule of RPG's and MMORPG's stated above, this should work exactly the same in, lets say, Hiring IV. Customized clothes on vendors are a beneficial vendor enhancment added in the skill box. Once removed, the vendorshould have thecustom clothing gained by the skill usage removed. That way, a person that never gained the skill before will be on equal ground as someone who lost the skill. This is not the case in the code today.A player that has never even touched the Hiring IV will never be able to utilize custom clothing, while someone who has left the skill box has kept the enhancment benefit of whatever clothing was already dropped on the vendor. There is a disconnectin the code, and I must conclude that the disconnect is a bug. I will guarentee you that virtually all other merchants will say the same thing.
SOE has had a long standing problem with word misuse in its descriptions in the game. For instance, by SOE's own admission, theuse of "Placing a vendor" was not intended.
You are interested in wording and semantics. I am interested in concrete skill loss. This is not a matter of changeing a pathetic set of skills as both you and Dragonscout subscribe to. It is a bug on the game that should be fixed to keep the coherency of the skill progression system.
You can talk about adding non-vendor specific additions to the profession all you like, but know that the greatest affect to showing how valuable the Merchant proffesion is by fixing such prolific bugslike these, and again granting them exclusivelyto the Merchant class as intended.
Balkstar wrote:
This may be new to you, so I'll try and go slowly for you.
Nicely said! Comments like that never fail to make you sound like a superior intellect.
I assure you, I'm not new to RPGs orMMORPGs (been playing and DMing pen-and-paper RPGs since '95, and playingMMORPGs since '97 or thereabouts). I've also been working in the software industry since '99, in capacities ranging from QA to tech support to documentation to development. Not that this should be relevant, because a purely logical argument stands on its own merit, not the qualifications of the speaker, but I share this information in the hope that it'll save you from spending more time on ad hominem attacks that nobody really wants to wade through.
(very compelling argument about losing benefits of skills yada yada yada)
Yup. Still irrelevant. You're still arguing for what might have been a better design, in your opinion. Doesn't mean that it was the design that got approved. Bad design does not equate to bug.
Of course, you still misapply your arguments in some cases, but I won't bother going over those, because it'd still be irrelevant even if your arguments in that area were all perfectlysound.
SOE has had a long standing problem with word misuse in its descriptions in the game. For instance, by SOE's own admission, theuse of "Placing a vendor" was not intended.
Only as it pertains to the Management skill tree. Which makes much more sense in that context, because the title of the skill tree is "Management", which has nothing to do with placement. They have never said that the title of the "Hiring" tree was wrong and that "placement" in the "Hiring" skill descriptions was wrong. (If they have and I missed it, please dredge up a link to the quote, and I'll eat my words.)
p4Samwise wrote:
I assure you, I'm not new to RPGs orMMORPGs (been playing and DMing pen-and-paper RPGs since '95, and playingMMORPGs since '97 or thereabouts). I've also been working in the software industry since '99, in capacities ranging from QA to tech support to documentation to development. Not that this should be relevant, because a purely logical argument stands on its own merit, not the qualifications of the speaker, but I share this information in the hope that it'll save you from spending more time on ad hominem attacks that nobody really wants to wade through.
Problem is that you aren't paying attention. It's that you have chosen to igore hard standing facts. You are basically putting your hands to your ears and shouting "LALALALALALALALALALA!!" hoping the truth will go away. It isn't. Your exploitations have come to light and there is not a thing you can do to cover them up.
AsIhave been an RPGgaming person since 1985 and an operational engineer of a MMORPG of a currently running game, you should trust elders like me. We've had the experiences that most of you younguns can learn a great deal from.
You're still arguing for what might have been a better design, in your opinion. Doesn't mean that it was the design that got approved. Bad design does not equate to bug.
Actually I'm proving the system is bugged, and you are exploiting it. But to you that would be semantics now, wouldn't it?
Of course, you still misapply your arguments in some cases, but I won't bother going over those, because it'd still be irrelevant even if your arguments in that area were all perfectlysound.
Oh do tell! I'm all ears. (This should be rich) Anyway to kick your arguments back in yourface to knock you down from your perch.
SOE has had a long standing problem with word misuse in its descriptions in the game. For instance, by SOE's own admission, theuse of "Placing a vendor" was not intended.
Only as it pertains to the Management skill tree. Which makes much more sense in that context, because the title of the skill tree is "Management", which has nothing to do with placement. They have never said that the title of the "Hiring" tree was wrong and that "placement" in the "Hiring" skill descriptions was wrong. (If they have and I missed it, please dredge up a link to the quote, and I'll eat my words.)
Silly Wabbit. I'm not trying to put "Hiring" under the same blanket as the SOE "Placing" post. What I've proven is that there is a track record by SOE choosing poor words to describe skills. I figure this is one more of their flubs, and based on SOE's track record, it's a very high likelyhood that this is the case.
Balkstar wrote:
Problem is that you aren't paying attention. It's that you have chosen to igore hard standing facts. You are basically putting your hands to your ears and shouting "LALALALALALALALALALA!!" hoping the truth will go away. It isn't. Your exploitations have come to light and there is not a thing you can do to cover them up.
AsIhave been an RPGgaming person since 1985 and an operational engineer of a MMORPG of a currently running game, you should trust elders like me. We've had the experiences that most of you younguns can learn a great deal from.
...and your maturity really shows, Gramps,what with the "LALALALA" and namecallingand so forth.
You're still arguing for what might have been a better design, in your opinion. Doesn't mean that it was the design that got approved. Bad design does not equate to bug.
Actually I'm proving the system is bugged, and you are exploiting it. But to you that would be semantics now, wouldn't it?
Nope. You can only "prove" the system is "bugged" if you can prove that it currently functions in a way that isopposed to its design and documentation. This is QA 101. If the design is bad, and the implementation conforms to the design, it's not a bug, it's a misfeature.
You have no evidence whatsoever to prove that this falls under the "bug" category. You can certainly prove that the system functions in a non-optimal way, but that is leagues away from being a "bug" or an "exploit".
Of course, you still misapply your arguments in some cases, but I won't bother going over those, because it'd still be irrelevant even if your arguments in that area were all perfectlysound.
Oh do tell! I'm all ears. (This should be rich) Anyway to kick your arguments back in yourface to knock you down from your perch.
Well, here was one that made my ears perk up:
As a universally accepted rule in EVERY RPG or MMORPG, the loss of a level or skill set on the character means the loss of the exclusive enhancements and tools of the class or profession to the character.
A counter-example immediately leapt to mind from D&D, arguably the template from which most other RPGs were wrought. One of the exclusive "enhancements" given to the Wizard class (I'm thinking of D&D 2nd Ed here if you want to get your rulebooks out) is the use of the Permanency spell, which can be used to make one of the wizard's personal spell effects permanent.
A level-drained wizard who is no longer able to cast the Permanency spell will retain any Permanencied spell effects he might have, regardless of what sortof benefitthe spell effect provides.
Similarly, a wizard who crafts a wand (a class-specific tool which uses the spell trigger activation method) in 3rd edis still able to use said wand, even if he subsequently loses the ability to cast the spell it contains, because the spell is still on his class list.
Similarly, a merchant in SWG who hires a vendor of a specific race (say, for example, uses the Hiring 1 skill to specifically hire awookiee vendor)and then loses the Hiring skill that was used to hire that vendor, but remains a merchant in all other respects (including the Management line needed to manage that vendor), is still able to use that vendor. At present, it happens that the merchant can also lose the Management skill and still use the vendor, and this is a documented bug, but it has no relevance to the Hiring skill tree.
Silly Wabbit. I'm not trying to put "Hiring" under the same blanket as the SOE "Placing" post. What I've proven is that there is a track record by SOE choosing poor words to describe skills. I figure this is one more of their flubs, and based on SOE's track record, it's a very high likelyhood that this is the case.
You were just going on about how these are cold hard facts and that I'm blind to not see them. Now you're admitting that you've beenextrapolating SOE's intent rather than going off iron-clad statements from developers, and you'reusing words like "very high likelihood" (except you're misspelling them, of course, O Ancient and Learned One). Further, you're admitting that SOE has a poor track record with quality control,having just said in a previous breaththat the original design must surely have conformed to what you view as "correct" RPG skill design.
Inconsistent much?
Balkstar, not only is Deadra ripping your misguided logic apart, but she is also refraining from personal attacks (something you have a problem with) and providing specific responses that give points of reference to prove what she is saying.
You on the other hand are pulling things out of the air (making charts with wrong numbers, a novice merchant last I saw only gets two vendors, not three -- which you should know since you are an expert at all things merchant) and just claiming that because you have been around a while (which is still in question, because from your responses you don't show much maturity in how you post) that you know everything there is to know, is just faulty logic. And then to top it off, your main complaint against deadra's posts is that you don't understand what she is saying. If that is the case, you need to spend a bit more time reading them than picking them apart and then let it sink in a day or two before posting.
And lets see... 1985. no decent graphical games out, first okay graphical games I remember being on the ImagiNation Network in around...1994.. And long before that, there were text based games (which I would love to know if you have played those and which ones, because if you haven't you again don't know everything) and before that there was tabletop D&D. And aside from Deadra's post about the permanency spell, you could also dual class and in some campaigns switch classes completely but still keep certain abilities. That is the beauty of roleplaying games, things aren't set in stone. And just because every other game works one way (which is not true to begin with), doesn't mean this game has to work the same, so again your logic is messed up.
And as far as how elder you are, I worked for over a year with Westwood Studios as a Game Tester, working on such games like command and conquer Tiberian Sun, Nox, Lands of Lore 3, etc. and I was also a Game Developer for Simutronics Inc for over 2 years working with base code and overall game systems. Not that any of it matters to this or any discussion on here, but I think I know just a little bit about the gaming industry and have no problem providing references. lol.
Like Deadra has said, it was a bad design to start with. It needs to be fixed in the sense that it needs to be completely re-written. It is the only profession in the game that you cannot make any money with JUST merchant or even JUST the business tree of artisan. Hell, even entertainers can do missions. lol. That alone, which is a fact, makes merchant completely messed up in my opinion, and is the number one reason why I look at it like a utility profession. If it cannot stand alone without outside help, something is wrong.
But, I know this falls on deaf ears and I am sure this post will be picked apart and used to further the all-people-that-disagree-with-me-are-stupid-noobs fund. so have fun
p4Samwise wrote:
...and your maturity really shows, Gramps,what with the "LALALALA" and namecallingand so forth.
Just because I'm older and wiser than you doesn't mena that I'm not privy to recent jargon when someone throws a tantrum. (/emote wacks Samwise over the head with his cane) Now pay attention!
Nope. You can only "prove" the system is "bugged" if you can prove that it currently functions in a way that isopposed to its design and documentation. This is QA 101. If the design is bad, and the implementation conforms to the design, it's not a bug, it's a misfeature.
You have no evidence whatsoever to prove that this falls under the "bug" category. You can certainly prove that the system functions in a non-optimal way, but that is leagues away from being a "bug" or an "exploit".
OK fair enough. Since I was not in QA101, such SLIGHT semantical difference in words are not known to me. What I have shown in concrete detail is the discrepency of the skills used beween a player that enters a skill box of the various Merchant trees then drop the skill points, and those that have never even put points into the various branches in the first place.Fact is that skills are being used without skillpoint allocation. That's exploiting a "misfeature", but I'm willing call it a bug, because basically "if it quacks like a duck..."
As a universally accepted rule in EVERY RPG or MMORPG, the loss of a level or skill set on the character means the loss of the exclusive enhancements and tools of the class or profession to the character.
A counter-example immediately leapt to mind from D&D, arguably the template from which most other RPGs were wrought. One of the exclusive "enhancements" given to the Wizard class (I'm thinking of D&D 2nd Ed here if you want to get your rulebooks out) is the use of the Permanency spell, which can be used to make one of the wizard's personal spell effects permanent.
A level-drained wizard who is no longer able to cast the Permanency spell will retain any Permanencied spell effects he might have, regardless of what sortof benefitthe spell effect provides.
And how long did it take you tosearchthe Player's Manual for that one? I'm impressed. Hmmm... Permenancy... Oh yes. Here it is. Well by gosh you are right . A specifically defined spell that provides the effect that trumps any rule of duration to any spell or spell effect. Sounds like you have to be a pretty powerful wizard in order to get such a powerful spell like that. ButI don't believe that that spell effect can alter the number or type of spells a wizard can cast or hitpoint loss duringa level drain. Maybe Wish can, but that spell is a loaded gun that has been talked about in many DM circles as being too powerful.
In any event, that spell you talk about affects a "good" that is imparted by either the spell caster himself, or any other device that that can impart a spell effect. This good being the magical effect that is manifested when the spell is cast. It does not affect the "tools" of the Wizard (i.e.thenumber and type of spellsawizard can cast)So really, this a poor example, but it was a valiant effort. Try again.
Similarly, a wizard who crafts a wand (a class-specific tool which uses the spell trigger activation method) in 3rd edis still able to use said wand, even if he subsequently loses the ability to cast the spell it contains, because the spell is still on his class list.
Ahh. a good that can be used by any other wizard, regarless of level. I love wands. Unfortunately, again, not a good example. Similar to factory schematics of the SWG crafting profession, they are goods that have a limited lifetime. They in no way affect the tools of the "wizard". Try again.
Similarly, a merchant in SWG who hires a vendor of a specific race (say, for example, uses the Hiring 1 skill to specifically hire awookiee vendor)and then loses the Hiring skill that was used to hire that vendor, but remains a merchant in all other respects (including the Management line needed to manage that vendor), is still able to use that vendor. At present, it happens that the merchant can also lose the Management skill and still use the vendor, and this is a documented bug, but it has no relevance to the Hiring skill tree.
Now I'm trying desperately to find the Permanency wording on the skill boxes. You know what, I'm not finding it. Permenantly gaining the look of a specific NPC or custom clothing just isn't there. The word"Hiring" just seems more of a misprint for the branch title, as there is no "permenantly place" wording in any of the skill boxes. I would believe then that for fairness sake, the skill of utilizing the enhanced NPC vendors is lost when the skill points are reclaimed.
You were just going on about how these are cold hard facts and that I'm blind to not see them. Now you're admitting that you've beenextrapolating SOE's intent rather than going off iron-clad statements from developers, and you'reusing words like "very high likelihood" (except you're misspelling them, of course, O Ancient and Learned One). Further, you're admitting that SOE has a poor track record with quality control,having just said in a previous breaththat the original design must surely have conformed to what you view as "correct" RPG skill design.
Inconsistent much?
(Sigh) Oh how you disappoint me. With a logical argument presented right to your face complete with highly defined examples, you still cling to this belief that this as intended? SOE may have defined theManagement bug inlarge detail, but have neglected to say anything about this tree. Why?Maybe they are just stringing you out. Lord knows why. PersonallyI'd rather have your arguments have a quick and painless death. In either case it is a highly used exploit to gain skills without the permenant use of skill points.
Balkstar wrote:
...and your maturity really shows, Gramps,what with the "LALALALA" and namecallingand so forth.
Just because I'm older and wiser than you doesn't mena that I'm not privy to recent jargon when someone throws a tantrum. (/emote wacks Samwise over the head with his cane) Now pay attention!
Now, between the two of us, I only see one person exhibiting behavior characteristic of a "tantrum", such as emotional outbursts andpersonal attacks. And that person isn't me.
You have no evidence whatsoever to prove that this falls under the "bug" category. You can certainly prove that the system functions in a non-optimal way, but that is leagues away from being a "bug" or an "exploit".
OK fair enough. Since I was not in QA101, such SLIGHT semantical difference in words are not known to me. What I have shown in concrete detail is the discrepency of the skills used beween a player that enters a skill box of the various Merchant trees then drop the skill points, and those that have never even put points into the various branches in the first place.Fact is that skills are being used without skillpoint allocation. That's exploiting a "misfeature", but I'm willing call it a bug, because basically "if it quacks like a duck..."
:quacks like a duck:
Am I a duck?
Seriously, there actually is a big difference between a bug and a design flaw, and it's not just semantic. It's the difference between breaking a rule (cheating/exploiting) and working within the boundaries of established (but possibly poorly written) rules.
The difference is important because a "bug" can be objectively and concretely identified by applying one simple qualification: is the software behaving according to its design spec (or equivalent thereof)? There is no room for ambiguity there, because you can hold those two things up and compare them and objectively say that they don't match.
A "misfeature" or "design flaw", however, can be enormously subjective. For example, many people say that it's a design flaw that rifles and pistols have the same speed cap, and that Master Riflemen can fire their T21s as fast as the fastest pistol. By your logic, that would make EVERY master rifleman a filthy stinking scum of the earth exploiter, because there's no difference between a bug and a misfeature.
Similarly, no matter how convinced you are of how Hiring should behave, and how compelling an argument you can make for it, if what you propose is in fact not the way that it was designed to behave, all you're doing is expressing your opinion on how things should be. Those who disagree with you are not exploiting a bug, they are playing a game, and they are playing by the same rules you are, even if those rules might be a bit flawed.
Again, Management is a different issue, because we have ample evidence that it was in fact designed to govern "management" of vendors rather than "hiring" them, which makes usage of the system counter to thatdesign an "exploit" (though it's one that the admins have chosen not to actively treat or even announce as such).
A level-drained wizard who is no longer able to cast the Permanency spell will retain any Permanencied spell effects he might have, regardless of what sortof benefitthe spell effect provides.
And how long did it take you tosearchthe Player's Manual for that one? I'm impressed. Hmmm... Permenancy... Oh yes. Here it is. Well by gosh you are right . A specifically defined spell that provides the effect that trumps any rule of duration to any spell or spell effect. Sounds like you have to be a pretty powerful wizard in order to get such a powerful spell like that. ButI don't believe that that spell effect can alter the number or type of spells a wizard can cast or hitpoint loss duringa level drain. Maybe Wish can, but that spell is a loaded gun that has been talked about in many DM circles as being too powerful.
In any event, that spell you talk about affects a "good" that is imparted by either the spell caster himself, or any other device that that can impart a spell effect. This good being the magical effect that is manifested when the spell is cast. It does not affect the "tools" of the Wizard (i.e.thenumber and type of spellsawizard can cast)So really, this a poor example, but it was a valiant effort. Try again.
Actually, it took me no time at all - it leapt to mind unbidden because the wizard in my current D&D campaign has such a spell active (grandfathered in from 2nd Ed), granting him permanent Detect Invisibility. It's damned annoying when I plan encounters involving creatures with invisibility, but he paid his Constitution point fair and square, so I try not to begrudge it.
You actually could make a case for it affecting the "tools" of a wizard, because the permanent effect basically gives the wizard an extra spell slot (the one he would have otherwise used to cast the Permanencied spell). Spell slots are a tool. QED.
In this particular case I was actually thinking of it as an "enhancement" (one of the criteria you gave), but really, it works either way.
Ahh. a good that can be used by any other wizard, regarless of level. I love wands. Unfortunately, again, not a good example. Similar to factory schematics of the SWG crafting profession, they are goods that have a limited lifetime. They in no way affect the tools of the "wizard". Try again.
If the limited lifetime is what bothers you, substitute "wand" for "miscellaneous magical item". Suppose further that the magical item is usable only by the wizard who crafts it, and has a fixed number of uses per day. Slightly contrived example? Yes. But certainly permissible in pen-and-paper RPGs. (The same wizard actually has a magical item along these lines... I made him go through hell to craft it, of course.) In fact, pen and paper RPGs generally have exceptions to every rule. Which makes any statement about "all RPGs obey this involate principle" inherently silly.
Similarly, a merchant in SWG who hires a vendor of a specific race (say, for example, uses the Hiring 1 skill to specifically hire awookiee vendor)and then loses the Hiring skill that was used to hire that vendor, but remains a merchant in all other respects (including the Management line needed to manage that vendor), is still able to use that vendor. At present, it happens that the merchant can also lose the Management skill and still use the vendor, and this is a documented bug, but it has no relevance to the Hiring skill tree.
Now I'm trying desperately to find the Permanency wording on the skill boxes. You know what, I'm not finding it. Permenantly gaining the look of a specific NPC or custom clothing just isn't there. The word"Hiring" just seems more of a misprint for the branch title, as there is no "permenantly place" wording in any of the skill boxes. I would believe then that for fairness sake, the skill of utilizing the enhanced NPC vendors is lost when the skill points are reclaimed.
You can believe that - but it remains your belief, not objective fact. "Temporary" isn't in that skill box any more than "permanent" is. And from my point of view, it makes no sense for your wookiee vendor to turn into a human just because you lost the ability to specify a wookiee vendor. (Hiring 1 is in fact silly no matter which way you look at it, because it doesn't grant you any vendor you couldn't have gotten without that skill, it just reduces the amount of random clicking you have to do to find the vendor you're looking for.)
(Sigh) Oh how you disappoint me.
Is this the part where I grovel and beg for another chance to make myself worthy in your sight?
With a logical argument presented right to your face complete with highly defined examples,
I'm sorry, I must have missed that between all the name-calling.
you still cling to this belief that this as intended? SOE may have defined theManagement bug inlarge detail, but have neglected to say anything about this tree. Why?Maybe they are just stringing you out. Lord knows why. PersonallyI'd rather have your arguments have a quick and painless death. In either case it is a highly used exploit to gain skills without the permenant use of skill points.
Actually, they didn't define the Management bug in large detail. They mumbled something about it not working as intended. We can reasonably deduce what they meant, but let's not say silly things about "large detail", because there ain't no such thing coming from their mouths.
And since you seem to appreciate a logical argument, scroll up to the part where I explain the difference between a bug and a design flaw, and the difference between exploiting and playing by the rules in a way that some individuals might not like.