Merchant Archive
Thread: Indulge me, is this an exploit?
Kiom wrote:The posts here are rather ironic in light of the dropping skills and keeping vendor threads.The devs stated that dropping skills and keeping the vendors is not working as intended. They have also said that using vendors as storage was not intended either.If doing something that the code allows but is not intended is considered an exploit then using vendors for storage (no matter how you justify it) is an exploit also.
I totally agree, not only because SoE have stated this isn't what was intended but for the fact that if I do anything, gain something, then surrender I can't keep what I gained as doing so gives an unfair advantage.
So...
- Master ranger, drop to master scout, I cant use /ar.
- Master Scout, drop to novice scout, I can't create a Glow-wire trap.
- Master Artisan, drop to novice, I can't create speeders.
- Gain Pistols IV in marksman, drop to pistols III, I am not certified for an FWG5
- Gain Buisness III in artisan, place vendor, drop artisan, I can still use my vendor.
Which one is the odd one out ?
Personally I think there is no discussion on the matter, it's plainly obvious vendors should be given and allowed to remain for players who have buisness III upwards.. Otherwise mastering the entire marksman profession and dropping for example should leave me certified in all of the weapons associated with that class, perhaps no bonuses, but certainly the certs.
Oh, and no, I don't want them.... Nor do I think that my current levels in merchant (2/4/0/4) if dropped should give me the bonuses and skills I aquired to date, or want those either should I choose to do so...
There should at least be a warning issued at some point..
/crave edit
I went and posted that idea in the in concept forum, who knows maybe one day I will be surprised. Thanks for prompting me to do so.
Who knows, maybe they might use it.
I can tell you guys that I consider the chance that they will change the stacking limits to be remote. I am hopeful they will allow us to sell resources and other items as units out of crates but I don't think you will see any resource crates in excess of 100k any time soon. There are several reasons for this. The main one being that the entire reason you want it to do so (you can have more resources at one time) is the whole point of the stack cap in the first place (to keep you from ammassing nearly unlimited amounts of resources) You can argue that their policy is wrong or that they don't know what their are doing (at your peril since they have the metrics and you don't) but at the end of the day I think we will still be at the same place.
DocSavag wrote:I can tell you guys that I consider the chance that they will change the stacking limits to be remote. I am hopeful they will allow us to sell resources and other items as units out of crates but I don't think you will see any resource crates in excess of 100k any time soon. There are several reasons for this. The main one being that the entire reason you want it to do so (you can have more resources at one time) is the whole point of the stack cap in the first place (to keep you from ammassing nearly unlimited amounts of resources) You can argue that their policy is wrong or that they don't know what their are doing (at your peril since they have the metrics and you don't) but at the end of the day I think we will still be at the same place.
Personally I can't see why they wont change the item cap, based on the fact that none of the people I have ever seen post here or have talked to in game actually likes the system as it is... Generally if the majority of your customers don't like your product, you change your product or you upset and lose your customers...
The item limitations on houses ARE wrong, and that isn't in dispute is it ? The fact that things stack in crates and stack in general to a cap could be, as you say, to stop people from aquiring massive ammounts of 'unlimited' resources but I think that's completely wrong when I have seen people boasting on these very boards they have hundreds of static harvestors and more houses than I could dream of due to cross server lot trading.
In that scenario, I can see why they may want to stop it from escalating.. However I think penalising the player base with poorly thought out item caps while letting people run hundreds of harvestors and saying "We can't up the item limit because of database..[fill in the spin]" is nothing short of insane.. I can only have XXX items because I choose not to go and artificially increase my cap by getting lots from dozens of probably inactive characters, but the person who goes out and does it can have XXXXXXXXXX items.. And this is in the name of keeping the database intact and clean ?..
I think having cake and eating it springs to mind, if they really wanted to keep the DB clean and as small as possible they would go and chastise the people bumping up the database size and complexity by using masses of traded lots, but I don't think I have heard of them doing that ? What I have heard of is them deleting items in peoples stock room after seven days because the stock room was never intended to be used as a stockroom, which again is nothing short of side-splitting!
It's fine anyway I've said my piece on board x and board y about the inventory system, all I know is if anyone ever asks me about the inventory system in this game I will tell them what I, and it seems the general player base, think.. It's the worst of any RPG/MMORPG I have ever played, not saying the game sucks it's one of the best I have played, but the inventory system on this game isn't even as good as some of the Megadrive and SNES RPG games I was playing over ten years ago..
I mean come on, I only had to pay ONCE for those aswell.
* shakes head *
Tilting at Windmills is amusing but rarely productive.
DocSavag wrote:
* shakes head *
Tilting at Windmills is amusing but rarely productive.
DocSavag wrote:
I can tell you guys that I consider the chance that they will change the stacking limits to be remote. I am hopeful they will allow us to sell resources and other items as units out of crates but I don't think you will see any resource crates in excess of 100k any time soon. There are several reasons for this. The main one being that the entire reason you want it to do so (you can have more resources at one time) is the whole point of the stack cap in the first place (to keep you from ammassing nearly unlimited amounts of resources) You can argue that their policy is wrong or that they don't know what their are doing (at your peril since they have the metrics and you don't) but at the end of the day I think we will still be at the same place.
Maybe. But I'm going to collect as much as I can when a resource spawns that I need. The amount I collect is finite and not governed by my storage. Like I said in my post on that thread, it is SOE's database. If they want to reduce the number of items in it then they can. Until then, I'll keep using as many as needed of my 30 lots for storage.
Kiom wrote:
DocSavag wrote:
I can tell you guys that I consider the chance that they will change the stacking limits to be remote. I am hopeful they will allow us to sell resources and other items as units out of crates but I don't think you will see any resource crates in excess of 100k any time soon. There are several reasons for this. The main one being that the entire reason you want it to do so (you can have more resources at one time) is the whole point of the stack cap in the first place (to keep you from ammassing nearly unlimited amounts of resources) You can argue that their policy is wrong or that they don't know what their are doing (at your peril since they have the metrics and you don't) but at the end of the day I think we will still be at the same place.
Maybe. But I'm going to collect as much as I can when a resource spawns that I need. The amount I collect is finite and not governed by my storage. Like I said in my post on that thread, it is SOE's database. If they want to reduce the number of items in it then they can. Until then, I'll keep using as many as needed of my 30 lots for storage.