Merchant Archive
Thread: Packs will now be staying in the game. Thanks for all the feedback!
Page 3 of 3
DocSavag
Tue Mar 09, 2004 8:29 pm
#27
BoberFett wrote:
The reason they're doing this is not to make life difficult for crafters, but to bring database storage requirements down. They've talked about lowering the vendor item limit to 150. Any lower than that and there'd be suicide bombings by disgruntled customers at SOE headquarters. So they lower the the vendor limit cap to 150 and what would people who use vendors do? By 150 backpacks and store not 150 items but 7500 items. So rather than having some guts and pulling the vendors that non-merchants shouldn't have, they're screwing real merchants up the Used Food Return.
They changed their mind about it already andit wasn't vendor storage at all but CS complaints about people getting ripped off buying backpacks.
Akinoor
Wed Mar 10, 2004 1:12 am
#28
I think I spend, and I mean it, 25% of my playingtime moving things between packs, vendor, houses and factories just to organize the components and resources I use as a tailor/armorsmith. And this is nothing I do because it's fun, it's because I need to have all these stuff available as soon as I'm about to craft something. I don't understand how anyone without 1 accounts with houses on all their lots, is going to be able to craft in large numbers after this. Then add the problems with not being able to sell whole armor suits, certain combinations of clothes, custom orders and what else we are using packs on vendors for.
Either none in the dev team has played a crafter full scale, or they simply don't care how much they'll ruin because this change has to be done for technical reasons. This is not a development that is fun or good for the players.
I don't think I will quit right now, but I will most likely drop armorsmith and only do tailor. And concentrate only on the fun parts of it, hopefully.
Akinoor
Wed Mar 10, 2004 7:39 am
#29
DocSavag wrote:
BoberFett wrote:
The reason they're doing this is not to make life difficult for crafters, but to bring database storage requirements down. They've talked about lowering the vendor item limit to 150. Any lower than that and there'd be suicide bombings by disgruntled customers at SOE headquarters. So they lower the the vendor limit cap to 150 and what would people who use vendors do? By 150 backpacks and store not 150 items but 7500 items. So rather than having some guts and pulling the vendors that non-merchants shouldn't have, they're screwing real merchants up the Used Food Return.
They changed their mind about it already andit wasn't vendor storage at all but CS complaints about people getting ripped off buying backpacks.
As someone who just lost one pack full of goods worth 2 millions from a vendor and not getting reimbursement because they don't have any tools to check the content of the pack, I can think of another reason too.
DocSavag
Wed Mar 10, 2004 7:56 am
#30
Akinoor wrote:
As someone who just lost one pack full of goods worth 2 millions from a vendor and not getting reimbursement because they don't have any tools to check the content of the pack, I can think of another reason too.
I think it is another example of the same issue, namely that the vendor database doesn't have data about the contents of a container. If they fix it so you can see the contents on the vendor then they will most likely have created the data they need to track the contents for reimbursement as well but it is a good call to mention that because it might not occur to them to include that in their plans to fix this issue.
Akinoor
Wed Mar 10, 2004 9:04 am
#31
DocSavag wrote:
Akinoor wrote:
As someone who just lost one pack full of goods worth 2 millions from a vendor and not getting reimbursement because they don't have any tools to check the content of the pack, I can think of another reason too.
I think it is another example of the same issue, namely that the vendor database doesn't have data about the contents of a container. If they fix it so you can see the contents on the vendor then they will most likely have created the data they need to track the contents for reimbursement as well but it is a good call to mention that because it might not occur to them to include that in their plans to fix this issue.
That's a very a good idea. Btw, do you know how big has the problems with fake named packs have been? It seems to me to be a problem that would solve itself pretty much.
DocSavag
Wed Mar 10, 2004 9:14 am
#32
Akinoor wrote:
That's a very a good idea. Btw, do you know how big has the problems with fake named packs have been? It seems to me to be a problem that would solve itself pretty much.
I don't know really I can only assume that it is farily big issue for CS or the code wouldn't have been considered in the first place.
Page 3 of 3