Merchant Archive
Thread: In Test Merchant Changes!
UrdlenThorn
Mon Aug 16, 2004 8:25 pm
#27
This is wonderful!
It makes the merchant Profession More than a necesessary pain. Now Master Merchant is SO valuable!
Specially-focused Vendors for my MM Architect--Deeds, Furniture in every store!
Arvariety of vendors in every location for my MM Weaponsmith--Sliced for speed, Sliced for Damage, and Unsliced.
TY SOE!
Kershakk
Mon Aug 16, 2004 8:47 pm
#28
For certain the 12 vendors was unexpected. The new item counts are more within tolerance I'd say. Definitely would allow for some more expansion.
I'm still wondering if they lowballed us to begin with so we'd live out the horror of what the 'proposed' system was, then when they 'sweeten' things up with the original plan we're all relieved.
I wonder what the reaction would have been if they opened with this?
/shrug - all academic. I'd have been ok if they came straight out with these numbers to begin with, if indeed lowballing is what took place. If it didnt - then most of us are certainly pleased it got lifted!
Brilyn
Mon Aug 16, 2004 10:14 pm
#29
Urdlentorn, how the heck are you going to cope?
There's over 70 pieces of Furniture. Over 80 weapons.
If you were to stock a mere 10 of each, that's 1500 used up right there.
Add in 10 Damage sliced of each weapon: +800
10 Speed sliced of each weapon + 800
Total so far: 3100
And then you have houses, factorys and Harvesters to stock, of which you only have room for 500.
How the heck is 3600 enough room????????
SeraphinAnnie
Mon Aug 16, 2004 10:19 pm
#30
Okie Brilyn gotchas. All I meant to point out though, is that 700+ weapons per vendor for a WS is an exception to the norm. They can't account only for the merchants who stock crazy high amounts of items just because. In fact, it's one of the things they're fighting against. Mind you, I don't believe in actual monopolies in this game as such. Simply because mr new tailor can have a business just like mine if he tried, so I have never bought the line that crafters who supply lots of stock are hurting anyone. That's not what I'm saying. I'm just saying that they had to come up with a middle ground here. They flat out said that vendors would not remain limitless, so that was out. What they had to do, was find a good general average item cap that people can deal with. You may want to keep you vendor stocked with 700 weapons, 20 of each kind etc. I don't blame you. However, unless you sell 700 a day, then you *can* deal with being slightly less stocked. As many of us will. There's exceptions to every crafter. Some keep low stock, some keep very high. You're on the very high side. Since they can't meet your high side, they had to go in the middle.
The changes aren't the most perfect for everyone, I agree to that. I keep over 300 items on my vendors too. But, I can make do with these changes, as they're far better than the former proposal. That's really my only point. IMO, you gotta be happy about any compromise, just the way I am.
Elyssa
Mon Aug 16, 2004 10:22 pm
#31
Oh, c'mon... everyone knows that we'd have reacted in exactly the same way.
Kershakk wrote:
I'm still wondering if they lowballed us to begin with so we'd live out the horror of what the 'proposed' system was, then when they 'sweeten' things up with the original plan we're all relieved.
I wonder what the reaction would have been if they opened with this?
Brilyn
Mon Aug 16, 2004 10:38 pm
#32
< All I meant to point out though, is that 700+ weapons per vendor for a WS is an exception to the norm. >
I agree.
I don't have a high opinion of people who have low-stocked vendors.
< They can't account only for the merchants who stock crazy high amounts of items just because. >
I don't have it 'just because'. I have it as it gains me a reputation of 'always having x in stock'. Thus, people travel to my vendor. I don't have Advertising anything from Merchant, but I have a stream of business, mainly due to word of mouth that I have all weapons in stock, in number, and at reasonable prices.
< However, unless you sell 700 a day, then you *can* deal with being slightly less stocked. >
Heh.... If I sold 700 a day, I think I'd shut down the shop just to lessen the stress of trying to keep up. 
< Since they can't meet your high side, they had to go in the middle. >
Well, here's a question:
If the item caps don't really inconvenience people much at all (except to reshuffle items to the new vendors), then how much does it *really* help the database?
I mean, if I'm considered to "stock crazy high amounts of items",and a *major* exception to the quantity of weapons most vendors stock, then I can't see them saving very much space at *all* in thedatabase. So what's the point in this limit?
< But, I can make do with these changes, as they're far better than the former proposal. >
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.........
See, that would be the trap, wouldn't it?
The previous limit was *so* bad you are now willing to "make do with these changes, as they're far better than the former proposal".
That's the WORST reason in the world to agree with these new numbers.
That's akin to:
"You're going to shoot me in the HEAD???? No, don't do THAT..... The foot? I *guess* I can accept being shot in the foot. It's better than being shot in the head, right?"
Yes, the analogy is a little extreme.
No, I'm not calling for 'no limits' on the vendors.
And I think the new vendors are great for people who like having lots of vendors. I, however, don't want lots of vendors. I neither want nor need additional money sinks.
Seeing that aggregate limits are out, I'd be prepared to accept a limit of 500 items per vendor at Novice Merchant, and 1000 per vendor at Master.
I'd *still* have to run multiple vendors at each location (which I REALLY do not want to do, but I can live with it), but at least I'd be able to maintain a reasonable level of stock, just about.
Message Edited by Brilyn on 08-17-2004 06:39 AM
Kershakk
Mon Aug 16, 2004 10:47 pm
#33
*grin* You're right. Still, 12 vendors is a nice change up. The caps are also lower than what I'd like, I stock like Brilyn does. I suppose this just means time to level a secondary merchant
Elyssa wrote:
Oh, c'mon... everyone knows that we'd have reacted in exactly the same way.
Kershakk wrote:
I'm still wondering if they lowballed us to begin with so we'd live out the horror of what the 'proposed' system was, then when they 'sweeten' things up with the original plan we're all relieved.
I wonder what the reaction would have been if they opened with this?
Elyssa
Mon Aug 16, 2004 10:55 pm
#34
I'm actually looking forward to having a vendor for chairs, another one for couches, and another one for tables.
It'll be much easier to tell what I'm out of and my customers won't have to page through 1500 items.
AloraElon
Mon Aug 16, 2004 11:14 pm
#35
The revised vendor item caps aregreat. As a Master Merchant, Master Weaponsmith my business will be saved! I don't mind having the items spread out over 12 vendors. I have shops in more than one location.
LadyGrace
Tue Aug 17, 2004 4:16 am
#36
JohnAdams wrote:
First of all, I'm keeping my powder dry til I see this confirmed from Doc or a Dev, TC stuff has a tendancy to peter out and what we get on live can be much different. I'm still thinking the limits are low, but tolerable. But the extra vendors is a real bonus. I was planning on going up the efficiency line anyway. And it gives me the opportunity to dabble on other planets. Props to SOE for being Machiavellian enough to make this work. I'm sure the initial offer was a low ball to get people to accept this one. The only people who argue against this will be the real high volume dealers. And with the attitude toward big business in the larger society, I doubt big businesses here will receive much sympathy. Still a ways from the free market I'd like to see. And I'd really like to see them raise both the price cap and item limits on the global bazaar. It would give those who choose not to pick up merchant skills an alternative while still rewarding real merchants. To the 1% of people who really sell more than 3k items a month, I feel for you. But for every 1 of you, I bet there's 100 that have a ton of merch on their vendors that simply gets resold every 30 days. If you spend more than 2 minutes a day reselling stuff from your stock room, you are part of the problem. Overall, I'd give this a 6.5 out of 10. Still too much micromanaging from the "state", but what do you expect?
You don't count Thunderheart as a dev?
Link in the original post to TH's post - http://forums.station.sony.com/swg/board/message?board.id=in_testing&message.id=25395#M25395
Cinderr
Tue Aug 17, 2004 4:57 am
#37
I am happy. I can live with this. Thanks for not letting us down.
SeraphinAnnie
Tue Aug 17, 2004 5:03 am
#38
Brilyn wrote:
< All I meant to point out though, is that 700+ weapons per vendor for a WS is an exception to the norm. >
I agree.
I don't have a high opinion of people who have low-stocked vendors.
But, it is still your opinion, and not the norm. They can't cater to everyone.
< They can't account only for the merchants who stock crazy high amounts of items just because. >
I don't have it 'just because'. I have it as it gains me a reputation of 'always having x in stock'. Thus, people travel to my vendor. I don't have Advertising anything from Merchant, but I have a stream of business, mainly due to word of mouth that I have all weapons in stock, in number, and at reasonable prices.
That wasn't meant in a derogatory way at all. I know the business of keeping lots of stock and variety very well, it's what has kept my business going strong for over a year. I'm not saying you are wrong.
< However, unless you sell 700 a day, then you *can* deal with being slightly less stocked. >
Heh.... If I sold 700 a day, I think I'd shut down the shop just to lessen the stress of trying to keep up.
That was my point. You stock very high out of desire, not actual "need". They can't meet everyone's standards.
< Since they can't meet your high side, they had to go in the middle. >
Well, here's a question:
If the item caps don't really inconvenience people much at all (except to reshuffle items to the new vendors), then how much does it *really* help the database?
I mean, if I'm considered to "stock crazy high amounts of items",and a *major* exception to the quantity of weapons most vendors stock, then I can't see them saving very much space at *all* in thedatabase. So what's the point in this limit?
I never agreed that the caps are harmless. Not at all. You're right, by limiting just you, they don't save much space. But you have to look at the grand scope. And you stock high for a WS, not crafters or merchants in general. Look at resource dealers. This cap hurts them quite a bit.
< But, I can make do with these changes, as they're far better than the former proposal. >
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.........
See, that would be the trap, wouldn't it?
The previous limit was *so* bad you are now willing to "make do with these changes, as they're far better than the former proposal".
That's the WORST reason in the world to agree with these new numbers.
That's akin to:
"You're going to shoot me in the HEAD???? No, don't do THAT..... The foot? I *guess* I can accept being shot in the foot. It's better than being shot in the head, right?"
Yes, the analogy is a little extreme.
Again, I do NOT "agree" with the numbers. IMO, they are still too low. But you cannot argue the fact that they *are* better than the 6 vendor/110 cap they threw at us first. 300 is a number *I* can live with, especially if I make use of the compromise of more vendors. As I said, they still had to come up with a middle ground. The fact is, if I want to continue my business, I have to adjust. So, I will adjust. You have the same choice. Some care about the politics behind this decision, but I don't. My business not suffering is what I want, and it won't now. So yeah, maybe I'm settling, but it's better than taking down my shops.
No, I'm not calling for 'no limits' on the vendors.
And I think the new vendors are great for people who like having lots of vendors. I, however, don't want lots of vendors. I neither want nor need additional money sinks.
Seeing that aggregate limits are out, I'd be prepared to accept a limit of 500 items per vendor at Novice Merchant, and 1000 per vendor at Master.
I'd *still* have to run multiple vendors at each location (which I REALLY do not want to do, but I can live with it), but at least I'd be able to maintain a reasonable level of stock, just about.
That was my point. You too can make do with the new limits. You may not want to, no one does, but you *can*. None of this was meant to be any kind of attack. I'm with you on the high stock. I was just trying to point out that keeping your business is more important than a few extra credits for more vendors.
Message Edited by Brilyn on 08-17-2004 06:39 AM
Brilyn
Tue Aug 17, 2004 10:29 am
#39
< That was my point. You stock very high out of desire, not actual "need". They can't meet everyone's standards.>
No.
While I don't sell 700 weapons a day, it DOES happen that someone walks in, buys 10 T21s, and 10 Jawas, then someone else does similar for my Heavy Weapons.
I've had a commando come in a clear my heavy weapons stock before, this was when I only kept 5 of each of them.
Yes, the 400k bump was sweet, but it meant I was out of that stock completely fora day or two. I'm one of the few WSs out there that cater to Commando, and that buyer (effectively) put me into the 'another WS who doesn't cater to Commano' box.
I try to carry 20 of each weapon, NOT because I sell 700 a day, but because I do sell 5-10 of a single weapon in one go, and I don't wish to be put out of stock because some Rifleman wanting the UBER slice cleared me out of T21s.
When that happens, I'm just another non-T21-stocking WS to everyone who comes after.........
<
Seeing that aggregate limits are out, I'd be prepared to accept a limit of 500 items per vendor at Novice Merchant, and 1000 per vendor at Master.
I'd *still* have to run multiple vendors at each location (which I REALLY do not want to do, but I can live with it), but at least I'd be able to maintain a reasonable level of stock, just about.
That was my point. You too can make do with the new limits. You may not want to, no one does, but you *can*. None of this was meant to be any kind of attack. I'm with you on the high stock. I was just trying to point out that keeping your business is more important than a few extra credits for more vendors. >
No, I can't.
Read my bit again (the bit in white). I can make do with limits if they're double the currently-proposed limits. *That* is a compromise. I'd *still* have to change the way I run my business.
I'm prepared to pay for the extra vendors, triple to quadruple my current vendor maintenance if I can retain some semblance of the stock I currently hold.
All this does (right now) is kick my business in the groin twice (less stock, more maintenance). That's not a compromise. That's 'take-take', not 'give-take'.