Merchant Archive
Thread: Abandoned vendor question ANSWERED
BillDir
Sat Sep 18, 2004 12:14 pm
#14
Then that explains why my vendor was deleted. This new "Vendor policy" only makes sense if the SWG database is in such sad shape that theyneed to get rid of Merchants and their vendors. Sure, I have plenty of alts that can buy items from my vendors to avoid deletion, but I don't pay for 3 accounts so I can play head games with the Devs. I play to relax, something that is becoming harder and harder to do.
Of all the idiotic ideas that I've seen in the last 15 months, this one surely takes the cake. This makes no sense at all, unless there are too many players and SOE needs to get rid of some, because this willcertainly cause it to happen. From the lack of players online when I am on, I doubt that is the case.
This will surely cause my departure. What is the point of playinga game where the rich kid with all the toys keeps changing the rules, everytime his opposition learns how to win. There are way too many alternatives to this game now, and SOE would be well advised to consider that. It is just not good business practice to unnecessarily alienate the customers. Having just completed an 11-day WoW Beta Stress Test, I can truthfully say that some of the alternatives ROCK! That Beta was so good that I am even having troubleplaying other games, evenmy two CoH accounts. (Yes, I am a hard-core gamer with no real life... You might be too when you are 60 years old andhave already done everything there is to do.)
This game has huge promise, and the main thing I see with it is an excess of bugs and a lack of meaningful direction from the Devs. The gameplay itself is great. It appears the other problems will never be corrected. Regardless of how this latest fiasco plays out,I am now sure I will take my $44.97/month elsewhere. This game has become as frustrating as my RL job, but then, my employer pays ME to take that abuse. Somehow, that makes it more worthwhile.
I harber no ill will to SOE, and wish them the best of luck in this ongoing Beta.
BillDir
DesktopSaki
Sat Sep 18, 2004 11:57 pm
#15
I just want to add my voice in agreement here. This is a horrible decision. Would a rifleman lose his rifle if he didn't game for two weeks? Would a city disappear if a politician didn't log in for two weeks? Will dancers lose their skills if they go a while without dancing?
If you don't touch something in your inventory for two weeks, will it vanish?
Then why penalize us so unreasonably?
As it is, the LONGEST a vendor can exist without being untouched is sixty days. Thirty until all current stock expires, another thirty until it is deleted from the stockroom. At that point, the vendor is game for deletion.
But as long as it has stock on it--visible or in the stockroom--it should not be deleted. Period.
Muzz
Sun Sep 19, 2004 6:15 am
#16
I put in a CSR ticket asking for clarification. The reply from the CSR was as follows:
"In order to reset the inactivity timer, the owner must access the vendor OR a customer must access/purchase an item from the vendor."
I've kept the ticket ref number incase I get any problems with vendors in the future.
LadyGrey
Sun Sep 19, 2004 7:05 am
#17
But when I bought something off of an alternate character's vendor, and the item subsequently disappeared (invalid item), I had a CSR come on to look at the problem. And as he was looking at the transactions that had occurred on that particular vendor, he told me there was no record of ANY transactions occurring on that vendor. But, since I also "own" that vendor (though on a different character), I knew there had been other transactions. So I told him there had been other transactions, and he said "Oh, all of a sudden some transactions have shown up for that vendor. That is strange." Just makes me wonder whether every transaction actually gets recorded as a transaction, or if there is some sort of trigger for when the transaction falls into their criteria as the vendor being touched by someone.
Any sufficiently complex game is indistinguishable from chaos.
Bazalan
Sun Sep 19, 2004 12:31 pm
#18
Seems the biggest hit will be to storage vendors.
A good blow to the head for any Merchant actually trying to use 12 vendors. Good luck keeping stock on 12 vendors that will not experience some lul in sales.
I'm curious why some of my vendors haven't gotten deleted though. I have some in a side room labeled XPA/XPB and they're still up with no items. My main vendors in the house get hit constantly though. Is there some proximity rule?
A good blow to the head for any Merchant actually trying to use 12 vendors. Good luck keeping stock on 12 vendors that will not experience some lul in sales.
I'm curious why some of my vendors haven't gotten deleted though. I have some in a side room labeled XPA/XPB and they're still up with no items. My main vendors in the house get hit constantly though. Is there some proximity rule?
BioTamer
Sun Sep 19, 2004 12:56 pm
#19
Marzuk147 wrote:
If I have to, Ill put things up for 1cr on my vendor, and buy one with my other character occasionally, but as another player said, I really dont want to have to spend time playing headgames with the devs.
Thanks for the suggestion. This is what I just did on all my vendors with my husband's character which is on a seperate account. I sold a cheap component (metal fastener) to all my vendors for 1 credit, logged him in, and bought them all.
There is also something of note here:
Less than a week ago I got an email saying my "clerk" vendor (the only vendor in my shop without anything but a 9999999 backpack on him as he is used for ad-barking and not sales, because ad barking turns the vendors to face the wall sometimes, so I just use him for that) and so I "withdraw sale" on him, relisted it, and this DID NOT COUNT TOWARDS HIM BEING UN-ABANDONED because lo and behold, couple days later, got the email again.
So, I think we have to "sell item" to vendor from INVENTORY NOT STOCKROOM. And we have to get someone to buy an item as well. If you are on Tatooine, Eclipse and need someone to buy 1cr items off your vendors send me a tell/email. And I will help you.
GonkSevenT3
Mon Sep 20, 2004 6:53 am
#20
I have a vendor with nothing too important on it. I use it to model outfits I craft to spice up my shop. I got the untouched email a week ago and went in and hit sell and item, but never actually sold anything to the vendor. I expect that some time this week I'll get a message saying it's been deleted, but if I don't I'll be sure to try and duplicate the whole process and see what happens.
On another note, I agree with everyone's sentiment that this is becoming more of a job and less of a game. I went away for the weekend and ran around for an hour putting in maint and pulling down harvs that I expected resource shifts on. The entire time I was thinking that it was equivilent to what I had done at the office that morning. Now that's not very fun.
Message Edited by GonkSevenT3 on 09-20-2004 09:57 AM
lisasdarren
Mon Sep 20, 2004 7:00 am
#21
Malitevv wrote:
so now we know.
this is unacceptable, unfair, and excessively harsh. it is also, in my opinion, wrong for them to have worked with the community on these vendor changes and to hide the fact that this policy was going in from us during that discussion.
this policy has a far greater impact on the profession than the number of vendors we are allowed and the number of items we are allowed to list. and in my opinion they had to know this.
and for this reason, I feel that I have been intentionally deceived by the developers on this issue.
I don't think we have been deceived, and I suspect the reason this was never bought up is that it was a last minute decision to fix the loophole that several poachers were boasting of. Thatthey would be able to grind their business skills once every month in order to re-list all their items and then drop them again.
It may be ill conceived, but I believe it is there as an attempt to solve a legitimate problem.
That said if you do not get a sale from a vendor in two weeks, you really need to do something about your business strategy.
DocSavag
Mon Sep 20, 2004 8:13 am
#22
lisasdarren wrote:
Malitevv wrote:so now we know.this is unacceptable, unfair, and excessively harsh. it is also, in my opinion, wrong for them to have worked with the community on these vendor changes and to hide the fact that this policy was going in from us during that discussion.this policy has a far greater impact on the profession than the number of vendors we are allowed and the number of items we are allowed to list. and in my opinion they had to know this.and for this reason, I feel that I have been intentionally deceived by the developers on this issue.I don't think we have been deceived, and I suspect the reason this was never bought up is that it was a last minute decision to fix the loophole that several poachers were boasting of. Thatthey would be able to grind their business skills once every month in order to re-list all their items and then drop them again.
It may be ill conceived, but I believe it is there as an attempt to solve a legitimate problem.
That said if you do not get a sale from a vendor in two weeks, you really need to do something about your business strategy.
Yea its a fairly transparent attempt to prevent storage but its going to hurt innocent merchants who have a slow month and cause a lot of grief with a questionable game mechanic. I don't support this and I hope to get it changed.
LadyGrey
Mon Sep 20, 2004 8:42 am
#23
The simplest solution would be that, if you are giving up skill points that allowed you to put up avendor, a pop-up window shows up immediately, telling you that your vendor will disappear as soon as you give up those skill points. No grace period, no waiting, no way of working around the problem. If you have the skill points for a maintenance-paid vendor, with at least one item on it, then that vendor should never ever go away.
If you give up skill points that allowed you to use a particular rifle, for instance, you immediately lose part of your ability to use that rifle. If you give up skill points that allowed you to survey, you immediately lose the ability to survey.
This is simply poor programming design, where a band-aid is being put on a problem, rather than addressing the core programming that allowed this to be exploited in the first place. And the band-aid is causing more grief to the legitimate merchants, than it ever will to the exploiters. Don't even try to justify this, or look for work-arounds, or come up with lame excuses for it being the best way to handle the situation. Deletion of legitimate vendors is just WRONG!
Mystyrys
Mon Sep 20, 2004 8:50 am
#24
DocSavag wrote:
Yea its a fairly transparent attempt to prevent storage but its going to hurt innocent merchants who have a slow month and cause a lot of grief with a questionable game mechanic. I don't support this and I hope to get it changed.
Yes. 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 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 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.
Please -- if they MUST have the vendor death watch -- please make it consistent with the other vendor timers and bump it up to 30 days.
McSassy
Mon Sep 20, 2004 9:49 am
#25
This is extremely detrimental to merchants, I really hope they change the time limit. I've always worked as an honest merchant and my income was acceptable, despite the poached vendors. I mean, you do what you can to get your wares sold, and the restocking and maintenance chores were tolerable.
But the abandonded vendor policy will hurt me so much more than the poached vendors ever did. I can't believe that a fully stocked and maintained vendor would be taken away in 2 weeks if it isn't "touched" even with all of the work I put into it and my profession.
My father passed away on Saturday.On Sunday night, I went around tending to my vendors, pullingitems and restocking,because I know I won't have much time to do so in the weeks coming up.Mostly it was to take my mind offthings in real life and it's definitely NOT a priority (lest any of you think I'm being disrespectful). But, it still makes me mad that I need to do this if I want to come back to the game in a few weeks with any kind of business. Someday, I'll probably feel up to playing regularly again and will need that "income." This game is supposed to be a hobby, not a job.
What are they thinking? 
BarboGato
Mon Sep 20, 2004 11:19 am
#26
<----- Agree with that!
Malitevv wrote:
I think the majority of us are in agreement on this: a vendor for which the player has the skills, for which the maintenance is paid, and which is not empty, should never be in danger of deletion, because there is a lull in sales of because the merchant wants to take a RL vacation.