Merchant Archive
Thread: Removing full, maintenance paid abandoned vendors has to end!
lisasdarren wrote:
Its a game! If one of my vendors got deleted 'by accident' ( i am sure that not all of the complaints are legit) i would submit a ticket and if they couldn't fix it go about rebuilding the stock from that vendor, it is only a game after all. The fun of crafting is in the finding resources and building stock anyhow so i would just be continuing doing what i enjoy as a crafter/merchant.
Just because you have no problem with broken promises and broken trusts doesn't mean the rest of us have to accept it.
There are no crafter advocates vocal within the devs community. Due to this we get comments from Tiggs (bless her) about how much she is a PVP advocate but not ONE SINGLE COMMENT EVER from a dev where supporting crafters is a primary concern.
You may want to separate crafters and merchants for this conversation but they are in essense the same thing. Destroy my stock for erroneous oversight and then have your CUSTOMER SERVICE laugh in my face and refuse to address the situation and the trust is gone.
Fivo Asia
Message Edited by Cafa on 09-23-2004 08:53 AM
lisasdarren wrote:
Rexan Wrote:
Having a guarenteed sales once every 2 weeks should not be a pre-requesite for playing this game.
I can think of many things, especially droid deeds, which may not sell a lot of. But trust me, its really nice to be able to find a stocked droid vendor when you need one. Especially one that has a droid with a combination of features which match what you are looking for.
For starters it is sales every 6 weeks, and if you are planning on being a merchant expecting to sell something every 6 weeks is not an unrealistic requirement. If you are not making a sale in that long a time period, nor selling anything new, do you need a vendor? And how many people seriously take 6 week holidays? Its not the best policy ever implemented, but it is not really as big a deal as so many people are making it out to be.
Message Edited by rexan on 09-23-2004 09:41 AM
phrenq wrote:
1. It shouldn't matter how often you're paying. They're getting your money either way.
2. It's a lousy analogy anyway. A better one would be, "If a word processor crashes part way through writing a long document, and the manufacturer knows it, and the manufacturer has a copy of your document saved on its server, would you expect the manufacturer to replace your lost document with its stored copy?"
Darn right I would!
Actually, I have had several instances during the last year, when items on a legitimate vendor became "inaccessible" to me. Could see them, examine them, even pull them from active sales to the storeroom. But could not retrieve them. Big expensive items, sometimes. Had CSR's come in and log on my account, where they could see them, examine them, etc. Still couldn't retrieve them. Even had some dev's come on one time, because they couldn't believe that something that was so obviously THERE, wasn't really there. And the devs couldn't figure out how to get the items, either.
In that case, it is a matter of someone having a stored copy of my document, on their server, and they can't figure out how to give it to me. Worse, they somehow don't know how to make a copy of it. The best they can do is offer me a pretend document, that isn't anything like my original document.
When Sony talks about there being a problem with the database, they are absolutely right. But it has nothing to do with how many items are on the database, it has to do with nobody knowing how the database even works.
Of course this is just a game. It is pretend. It will not cause global warming, or plagues, or come up with a cure for cancer. It is a recreation. But, the recreational value of it is in creating a virtual stage, a window to somewhere else, a sense of being inside of astory. Whenever we have to do work-arounds, ora bugin the game stops the flow of the story, the illusion breaks. It is as if the magician, after every trick, shows how they accomplish the trick. Or in a movie, when you can dimly see the camera crew reflected in the window that the actor is standing in front of. The recreation of a game is entirely in how well the illusion remains, just as in a good movie or book.
That is why people will play this game for a while, sometimes a long while, and then suddenly grow tired of it. Our minds are very good at "filling in the blanks" on things. We can accept as whole things that have missing information. Too much missing information, though, and evena gamersmind rebels against seeing the whole any more. Too many work-arounds, too many bugs, too many lost items, too many frustrating hidden rules, too many stealth nerfs. Too bad, Sony. You gave it a good try. But in this case, it was do, or do not. There is no try, not even a good try.
LadyGrey wrote:Actually, I have had several instances during the last year, when items on a legitimate vendor became "inaccessible" to me. Could see them, examine them, even pull them from active sales to the storeroom. But could not retrieve them. Big expensive items, sometimes. Had CSR's come in and log on my account, where they could see them, examine them, etc. Still couldn't retrieve them. Even had some dev's come on one time, because they couldn't believe that something that was so obviously THERE, wasn't really there. And the devs couldn't figure out how to get the items, either.
In that case, it is a matter of someone having a stored copy of my document, on their server, and they can't figure out how to give it to me. Worse, they somehow don't know how to make a copy of it. The best they can do is offer me a pretend document, that isn't anything like my original document.
(Dropping the analogy
) In your case, since they could examine the item and see the stats, it should have been nothing for them to have given you a replacement with the exact same stats. Even IF they can't figure out what happened to the original. Anything less is not only lousy customer service, but I can't even begin to fathom why they wouldn't do it. What's it hurt to reimburse you when there's obvious proof of the loss?And whether it's a game or not is irrelevant. It's also a product with customers that get frustrated by lousy service. Do it enough, and customers will leave. So it's in SOE's interest to provide fair service. I can't figure out why they so consistently don't.
Message Edited by phrenq on 09-23-2004 04:52 PM
In the Definition of the DEVs, poaching was not wrong. It might have been something they didnt like how it was working, but it wasn't wrong. If it was, it would have been fixed sooner, they would have told people not to do it, there would have been bannings, etc etc etc.
As far as unintended things just by nature being 'wrong'.. that is such a load of bull. Unintended things happen all the time in coding games, sometimes the coders decide they like them, other times they don't. either way they are not inherently 'wrong'. Especially when I am not so sure how 'unintended' poaching was. I would bet money the original designers specifically left out code to delete vendors because of the issues that are happening now. It is not worth the CS nightmare junk to have vendors poof. And if that was left out on purpose, then I am sure the original coder had some idea that this could/would happen. (though it also happens allll the time that players just out-think the coders.. but that doesn't make it bad or wrong)
Either way.. you should never expect your morality to rule the universe. Your opinions and life choices are just that, yours. Me personally, if all the rules -- both in game and out -- say something is okay, and the mechanics say it is okay, I don't see how it could ever be classified as 'wrong'. You don't have to agree with me, and you can play your own way. You can even argue with me why your way is a decent alternative, but again I don't have to agree... All I have to do is play with the rules the DEVs have given me. Kinda like how you play boardgames.. lots of people have their own rules for how they like to play.. but when it really comes down to it, if you don't agree on changing them... you can just point to the rulebook and say.. nope.. that says it works this way. Well.. that is basically how poaching was... you can say it is wrong all you like, but everything pointed to it being okay -- from in game text to the lack of DEV response. In the end they decided to change it, but never once did they say it was wrong, and you can still do it with the current set up -- just takes a bit more work.
With cards.. there are specific rules against cheating and what cards you can use and the way they can be used. In SWG, the 'rules' that players had to go on, stated that poaching was fine. There was nothing in game or out that said it was against the rules, and several things that said it was okay. That is NOT cheating.
And while there is a realistic claim that it isn't fair that you can gain some form of benefit from having mastered merchant and then dropping it, it is ridiculous to think that the 'players' have any right to be making it. Because they are all equal in it and have the same opportunities. It isn't like duping where if you risk it you get in trouble, poaching was/is an accepted action. And while it was possibly going to be changed (which it was) that didn't make it 'wrong'. Anything in the game could change at any moment on the whim of a DEV.. so how you play today could be vile and evil and terribly wrong based on the decisions made tomorrow.. but if you waste your time worrying about that or trying to force people to play the way YOU think is right... you have something a bit out of wack upstairs.
And you point yourself out right there for what you truly are.. you want others punished because they didn't play the way YOU did or how you wanted them to. That is very egotistical and really just kind of demented -- especially since it never directly harmed you or your character. If the DEVs -- the only people that really matter -- never said it was wrong or cheating or exploiting, then what exactly is there to punish anyone for?? (and don't bother bringing up GarVas post.. she as far as I have been able to tell has nothing to do with the code, nor does 'kinda an exploit' count, so while it is nice that she has an opinion on the matter.. It doesn't hold water in my opinion until a true DEV says it is wrong and people are going to be banned for doing it.) But you keep rubbing other peoples noses in it.. just don't be surprised if it bites you in the butt. Karma and all that.
Also, it is nice that you have no problem with the changes, its too bad that other people who are master merchants who do check their vendors and put new stuff up for sale are getting hit by bugs deleting their vendors. That it is happening at ALL, is a problem in my opinion -- a much more serious problem than vendor poaching ever was.
And if it is just a game, then why did you care so much about how other people played when it had no effect upon you or your gameplay at all? Now people ARE having problems with their gameplay because of a ill-planned patch that was designed to fix something that was fairly trivial, especially in light of all the other improvements that could have been done with that time. But hey.. its just a game to me.. and how others want to play.. doesn't really bother me. What does bother me is when I put time and effort into anything and due to a bug that was put into the game on accident when the DEVs were fixing something that didn't need to be fixed, my legit items vanish. That would bother me, regardless of it 'just being a game'.
Agreed, but I don't pay the word processormanufacturer monthly to use their software either. Not sure if that makesmuch of a difference to some people (apples and oranges), but I can say I expect more from any company that receives money from me on an ongoing basis and that expects to continue to do so.
lisasdarren wrote:
If a word processor crashes part way through writing a long document would youexpect the manufacturer to re-do your document?
lisasdarren wrote:
Cafa wrote:
Just because you have no problem with broken promises and broken trusts doesn't mean the rest of us have to accept it.
There are no crafter advocates vocal within the devs community. Due to this we get comments from Tiggs (bless her) about how much she is a PVP advocate but not ONE SINGLE COMMENT EVER from a dev where supporting crafters is a primary concern.
You may want to separate crafters and merchants for this conversation but they are in essense the same thing. Destroy my stock for erroneous oversight and then have your CUSTOMER SERVICE laugh in my face and refuse to address the situation and the trust is gone.
Well I have never had a problem with customer service being rude, or mean or laughing in my face, i have always found they will help where they can.. however telling you that there is nothing they will do according to policy when you lose items is not a big deal to me, and seems a legitimate policy to stop scammers. I don't consider this a breach of trust, it is a corporate policy to prevent potential issues from within a game.
If a word processor crashes part way through writing a long document would youexpect the manufacturer to re-do your document?
These are not real tangible valuable goods, they are part of a game and thus losing them is something to shrug off and move on from, not complain about and get upset over. You get bugs in computer software, you always have and probably always will and the more complex the software the more the bugs and the harder they are to find.
As to broken promises, i have always read everything the devs have said they will do as subject to change, in fact they generally put that it is nothing is sure until it is done. I see no broken promises, just changed schedules and different ideas / aims.
Gee I guess you've never logged into the CSR chat at night and watched them talking about their love lives with people either. I especially liked it one night when I was told that CSRs weren't there to help customers. Most normal PAYING customers find that rude. You must be special.
If I had a ongoing maintenance agreementor usage license with the word processor supplier and the crash affected anything critical they would provide compensation on some level.
AFAIC, whether the virtual objects in this game are tangible is irrelevant since I PAY REAL MONEY to experience them. My concern is that effort is not spent on fixing those bugs, as we have documented over a year into this live beta we call SWG, and people like you just write off the work of thousands of players like it's a stain on the mirror. Corporate policy that deletes my work is just plain wrong. The sad thing is I know for a fact from RL contacts that everything you've stated is completely incorrect. CSR retention is really terrible at SOE and instead of designing a training plan to keep good people they would rather cycle kids through the jobs and ignore customers as long as they are the only game in town. Guess that works for now. If, however, any other online game ever comes out with a economic player-driven model designed initially as good as this with a SPECK of customer support I think crafters will walk.
You attitude extrudes that it is somehow OUR fault that OUR experience is bad. I certainly hope my company never hires any you work for in RL.
McSassy wrote:Agreed, but I don't pay the word processor manufacturer monthly to use their software either. Not sure if that makes much of a difference to some people (apples and oranges), but I can say I expect more from any company that receives money from me on an ongoing basis and that expects to continue to do so.
lisasdarren wrote:
If a word processor crashes part way through writing a long document would you expect the manufacturer to re-do your document?
1. It shouldn't matter how often you're paying. They're getting your money either way.
2. It's a lousy analogy anyway. A better one would be, "If a word processor crashes part way through writing a long document, and the manufacturer knows it, and the manufacturer has a copy of your document saved on its server, would you expect the manufacturer to replace your lost document with its stored copy?"
Darn right I would!
lisasdarren wrote:
As to paying money to play this 'game' ...
you all seem to be taking the loss of an in game 'worthless' item as critical to your wellbeing and it just isn't, if you feel it is go see a shrink, you need help. And that isn't an insult or a flame, but a serious point, if in game stuff is getting to you that much then you really need to get it sorted.
Lisasdarren, I completely agree with your statement that this is just a game and that it shouldn't be taken too far, but thepoint is that when I pay a company money, I expect a certain level of quality in the service/product/whatever and I expect a certain level of stability and customer service.
And although it's just a game (I like to call it a hobby, myself
), I don't see how you can't be frustrated when you've put effort into something and the results aren't what you expected, the rules keep changing, and the equipment keeps breaking. If you're able to do that, you're very lucky because I think most of us get pretty miffed and irritated.
I must be reading the posts differently than you are because I don't see people complaining about virtual material possesions as much as I see disatisfaction with the game mechanics and Sony's response to the existing problems.
Added: However, with today's update notes (vendor turnover has been changed from 14 days to 100 days), I have to say that I guess Sony takes its "game" pretty seriously and is working on listening to the customers. Hooray! 
Message Edited by McSassy on 09-24-2004 08:16 AM
DragonScout wrote:
lol. Who's right or wrong are we talking about? Obviously your definition of it.
No, the DEVs definition of it.
DragonScout wrote:
In the Definition of the DEVs, poaching was not wrong. It might have been something they didnt like how it was working, but it wasn't wrong.
Wrong. From one of Thunderhearts 19 answers posts:
It was never intended for players to be able to keep and manage vendors after surrendering the Management skill boxes used to acquire them. This is scheduled to be fixed in a future publish and we want to upgrade vendors also, but it’s a bit early to start talking about that.
DragonScout wrote:
If it was, it would have been fixed sooner, they would have told people not to do it, there would have been bannings, etc etc etc.
People need to realise that there are difference levels of exploit. Some exploits, like vendor poaching, are minor and some, like credit duping, are major. It is also possible to exploit without realising it. For these reasons taking advantage of an exploit will most likely not result in a banning or even a warning. As to 'it would have been fixed sooner', you mean like Smuggler, which the devs have been saying they want to revamp for a year already? Just because something doesn't get fixed doesn't mean it is working as intended. And just in case your unsure as to the definition of an exploit.
From the Community Standards
12. You will not exploit any bug in Star Wars Galaxies, and you will not communicate the existence of any such exploitable bug either directly or through public posting, to any other Sony Station member. You will promptly report such bugs via the /bug command in-game or by emailing [email protected]. Exploitable bugs include, but are not limited to bugs that grant the user unnatural or unintended benefits in-game.
Please cross-reference that with the quote above from Thunderheart. Bold font in both is my emphasis.
DragonScout wrote:
As far as unintended things just by nature being 'wrong'.. that is such a load of bull. Unintended things happen all the time in coding games, sometimes the coders decide they like them, other times they don't. either way they are not inherently 'wrong'. Especially when I am not so sure how 'unintended' poaching was. I would bet money the original designers specifically left out code to delete vendors because of the issues that are happening now. It is not worth the CS nightmare junk to have vendors poof. And if that was left out on purpose, then I am sure the original coder had some idea that this could/would happen. (though it also happens allll the time that players just out-think the coders.. but that doesn't make it bad or wrong.)
See above definition of an exploit.
DragonScout wrote:
Either way.. you should never expect your morality to rule the universe. Your opinions and life choices are just that, yours. Me personally, if all the rules -- both in game and out -- say something is okay, and the mechanics say it is okay, I don't see how it could ever be classified as 'wrong'. You don't have to agree with me, and you can play your own way. You can even argue with me why your way is a decent alternative, but again I don't have to agree... All I have to do is play with the rules the DEVs have given me. Kinda like how you play boardgames.. lots of people have their own rules for how they like to play.. but when it really comes down to it, if you don't agree on changing them... you can just point to the rulebook and say.. nope.. that says it works this way. Well.. that is basically how poaching was... you can say it is wrong all you like, but everything pointed to it being okay -- from in game text to the lack of DEV response. In the end they decided to change it, but never once did they say it was wrong, and you can still do it with the current set up -- just takes a bit more work.
I agree with this entirely except for one major point. We had a developer statement that vendor poaching was not intended. The DEVs said it was wrong.
EnigmaBSc