Merchant Archive
Thread: New on live today Unused vendor questions answered
Ani_cul
Tue Sep 21, 2004 11:48 am
#14
No matter the time before deletion
or the email warning(s) that will be sent:
If a merchant of any level and skill
pays the upkeep of their vendor(s)
allowed to be held by their skill level
and keeps it stocked
There is zero reason it should be threatened for deletion.
Period.
With the addition of multiple vendors quite a few merchants took the time to sort out their wares.
For tailor it meant shirts here, pants there, backpacks over there.
Architects could do deeds by planet for player cities, or harvester size.
Master Artisans have seperated Power-up vendors and vehicle ones.
A few have 'hidden deals' vendors, which are ones that are placed in remote areas holding quite alot of items for sell where there usually is none.
A single vendor on overhead where no-one lives and rarely goes, stocked with camps, swoops, food, odds and ends you may need while out that far.
And because the consumer does not buy (but may be browseing) from one of these vendors within in the month
(and I have seen vendors go empty in a day, berestocked, sit for two months, then hit jut aboutempty in a day again)
the merchant will lose ALL of the items on vendor as well as maintance paid in to keep said vendor running.
We should not have to place a 'new' item for sale if it is infact being browsed.
We should not have to worry that noone has bought from that particular vendor in awhile if we keep stock and maintiance.
We should not need a second account or have to get a friend to purchase something just to keep what we are taking direct care of.
To me that is just out right WRONG.
Now if the vendor is completely untouched ( you do not check for offers, offers are not made, players do not browse, )
THEN and Only then should it be considered for future deletion.
What's worse most merchants do not know exactly what is going on.
Since the whole untouched/abandoned 'thing' was not exactly shared with everyone until very recently.
Sepen
Tue Sep 21, 2004 3:26 pm
#15
Yogol wrote:
And if your vendor doesn't sell anything in 6 weeks, well, then you don't need the vendor, do you ?
Careful there. That is a real slippery slope you are climbing; not to mention, a bit judgemental.
What do I mean, slippery slope?
Well, if (in your opinion, not mine!) 6 weeks of no sales means "you don't need a vendor", then what about 5 weeks and 6 days? 5 weeks and 4 days? That's okay? Maybe not (in your opinion). Then maybe 3 weeks and 2 days?
It's hard to draw a line, where on one side "you need a vendor" and on the other, "you don't need one". See?
It's all arbitrary. Whatever SOE picks. It doesn't mean that 6 weeks and you "don't" need a vendor. It's 6 weeks "because SOE said so". See?
No need to be judgemental on others use of vendors and time span between sales. It's a slippery slope, and can do nothing but bring bad feelings.
6 weeks is certainly far better than 2. Bt this still strikes me as an unneeded game mechanic.
Cheers,
Martek
DocSavag
Tue Sep 21, 2004 3:43 pm
#16
6 weeks is a lot easier to defend on their part than 14 days however.
If their goal is to prevent people from storing things long term then this would do it while not affecting most real merchant establishments. I'm not saying I agree with it. I don't but I think we'll have a much harder time convincing them now.
If their goal is to prevent people from storing things long term then this would do it while not affecting most real merchant establishments. I'm not saying I agree with it. I don't but I think we'll have a much harder time convincing them now.
Mystyrys
Tue Sep 21, 2004 3:44 pm
#17
Yes. I agree. Empty, Abandoned, Illegally Owned/Operated vendors need to go. But deleting Stocked, Maintained, Legally Owned/Operated vendors is extremely frustrating. It makes even more busy-work and micro-managing for a profession that already has an overabundance of mind-numbingly boring and repetitive tasks.
For example: My main is a Master Tailor/Master Merchant. I have several vendors set upto categorize clothing. They also double as fashion mannequins.
I get frequent sales from the main Fashions one (dresses, pants, skirts, shirts), the Outerwear (jackets, robes, vests), the Crates vendor (tailor components in single crates and factory bundled in packs)and the Jewelry and Accessories one (jewelry, hats, belts, shoes, etc.)
But my vendor I use for only the quest reward items (Crafter's Aprons, Exquisite Leotards, etc.) and my Wookiees only vendor may go as long as a month, sometimes more,between sales. Especially now Wookiees have armor, sales on that vendor can be very slowbut have sudden spurts, usually when a "new" Wookiee player is shopping for wearables. It is a special sales feature and effort and expense to have a Wookiees only vendor since sorting through the entire clothing list for just their few items is annoying to them. The Wookiees appreciate having only one vendor to look through for clothing.
I also prefer to have a Special Order Pickup & Delivery vendor set aside but with this new 2 week + 2 week death watch thing that is no longer a viable option. It is now affecting the viability of having a Wookiees only and a Quest Items Only vendor as well. I am also currently involved in a Player Quest that requires a special vendor as part of their scavenger hunt. It has been a real PITA having to go "touch" this vendor to keep it alive so it is still there when the questers are given the clues to find it. Grrr.
And then there are the merchants who use an "empty"vendor as the only one listed on the global map with the name of their shop or mall, so as not to clutter up the map withmultiple vendor names in one location. And those ones who use a vendor as a door greeter, or other message bark they would like delivered to customers who walk within range. And what about merchants who want or need to be on vacation or at work for more than 2 weeks and can't "touch" their vendors? Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.
There are MANY legitimate reasons to operate a vendor that has little to no sales within a one month period.
unitymind
Tue Sep 21, 2004 10:06 pm
#18
REMOVE THIS ITEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Such a stupid thing - no point what so ever!
Archimast
Tue Sep 21, 2004 11:49 pm
#19
this is outrageous and stupid!
do they even understand their game concepts?
someone in payroll delete their files please their brains were left unsed for over 14 days!
do they even understand their game concepts?
someone in payroll delete their files please their brains were left unsed for over 14 days!
LadyGrey
Wed Sep 22, 2004 4:54 am
#20
DocSavag wrote:
6 weeks is a lot easier to defend on their part than 14 days however.
If their goal is to prevent people from storing things long term then this would do it while not affecting most real merchant establishments. I'm not saying I agree with it. I don't but I think we'll have a much harder time convincing them now.
I respectfully disagree with you on this one, Doc. There is no defense for something that is simply as stupid as this is. And the notion that we have to "convince" them that is is stupid . . . well, my response to that is both unprintable and unladylike, and I'll leave it at that.
Just remove this. That is our final offer, as professional merchants. No arguments, no compromise, no "work-arounds" or "living-withs." Remove it. We give the devs 14 days.
DocSavag
Wed Sep 22, 2004 5:54 am
#21
LadyGrey wrote:
DocSavag wrote:
6 weeks is a lot easier to defend on their part than 14 days however.
If their goal is to prevent people from storing things long term then this would do it while not affecting most real merchant establishments. I'm not saying I agree with it. I don't but I think we'll have a much harder time convincing them now.I respectfully disagree with you on this one, Doc. There is no defense for something that is simply as stupid as this is. And the notion that we have to "convince" them that is is stupid . . . well, my response to that is both unprintable and unladylike, and I'll leave it at that.
Just remove this. That is our final offer, as professional merchants. No arguments, no compromise, no "work-arounds" or "living-withs." Remove it. We give the devs 14 days.
I'm sorry. It doesn't work that way. I understand your anger about it but ultimatums don't work.
phrenq
Wed Sep 22, 2004 9:09 am
#22
DocSavag wrote:
If their goal is to prevent people from storing things long term then this would do it while not affecting most real merchant establishments.
Thing is, it DOESN'T do it. All you have to do is withdraw, retrieve, and relist one item every month and you can continue to use the vendor as storage.
I must say, with the six week timer, it is very unlikely to affect me. But the chance is there, and like I just said, it creates only a very minor hurdle for people to continue using storage vendors.
So what's the point?
LonelyGhost
Wed Sep 22, 2004 9:45 am
#23
They should put this much effeort into fixing the sad state of affairs in the whole house-item-cap. Now THERE is a real problem that needs to be addressed.
Autumn_Dawnfire
Wed Sep 22, 2004 2:06 pm
#24
this is bad game mechanic.
even the code is a bad idea.
god forbid something bugs and fully stocked USED vendors are deleted. IF this happened - even only on one server ONCE- the looses to crafters would be stupidly high.
The whole thing also fails to take into account slower business like speciality vendors - ie lighting, spices, artistan components, arcitect components, bulk resourcers ( especially as now you really can't afford to list anything other then a 100k stack with the item limits - which prices smaller operations out the market ).
There are many business that do make a profitbut arehighly irregular in their sales volumes.
Here's an idea - pop for the hardware to support the database and stop trying to make the date base fit the current hardware.
JTL isn't going to help this - new crafters - new materials - new drops.
Get the hardware inline so that the merchant profession can USE their vendors however they see fit.
The item caps are resonable. Requiring the skills operate a vendor was reasonable. This is not reasonable in any form.
There are MANY ways to solve a data base issue - the best is to get the hardware to support it.
Other options:
stop dropping any item that isn't used by a crafter for an end product
remove serial numbers from dropped crafting components so they can be used with large factory runs and aren't sitting around waiting for a special order
increase resource stack sizes to 1m instead of 100k - serious crafter wants 1m of the good resources when they do spawn - OR MORE -
Remove the item storage cap on houses - 75 itemsworksbut for that capbeing inplace. Actually 75 items is low given i can set up a facotry for storage in the input hopper and have 100 items for 1 lot.
the notion that a stocked vendor with maintenance paid upbeing operated bysomeone with the skills to do socan be deleted on an account that's PAID UP is beyond tolerable. That's just wrong. If this effects meI cancel my account, hopefully it never effects me or my family.
I was leary of purchasing another SOE game after my experiences with this company from Everquest. Things like this are the reason behind that caution and distrust. The mode of operation had been one of 'do what ever is easiest' - not what's right.
Autumn_Dawnfire
Wed Sep 22, 2004 2:07 pm
#25
this is bad game mechanic.
even the code is a bad idea.
god forbid something bugs and fully stocked USED vendors are deleted. IF this happened - even only on one server ONCE- the looses to crafters would be stupidly high.
The whole thing also fails to take into account slower business like speciality vendors - ie lighting, spices, artistan components, arcitect components, bulk resourcers ( especially as now you really can't afford to list anything other then a 100k stack with the item limits - which prices smaller operations out the market ).
There are many business that do make a profitbut arehighly irregular in their sales volumes.
Here's an idea - pop for the hardware to support the database and stop trying to make the date base fit the current hardware.
JTL isn't going to help this - new crafters - new materials - new drops.
Get the hardware inline so that the merchant profession can USE their vendors however they see fit.
The item caps are resonable. Requiring the skills operate a vendor was reasonable. This is not reasonable in any form.
There are MANY ways to solve a data base issue - the best is to get the hardware to support it.
Other options:
stop dropping any item that isn't used by a crafter for an end product
remove serial numbers from dropped crafting components so they can be used with large factory runs and aren't sitting around waiting for a special order
increase resource stack sizes to 1m instead of 100k - serious crafter wants 1m of the good resources when they do spawn - OR MORE -
Remove the item storage cap on houses - 75 itemsworksbut for that capbeing inplace. Actually 75 items is low given i can set up a facotry for storage in the input hopper and have 100 items for 1 lot.
the notion that a stocked vendor with maintenance paid upbeing operated bysomeone with the skills to do socan be deleted on an account that's PAID UP is beyond tolerable. That's just wrong. If this effects meI cancel my account, hopefully it never effects me or my family.
I was leary of purchasing another SOE game after my experiences with this company from Everquest. Things like this are the reason behind that caution and distrust. The mode of operation had been one of 'do what ever is easiest' - not what's right.
Autumn_Dawnfire
Wed Sep 22, 2004 2:09 pm
#26
sorry for the multiple posts - wont let me edit them away either