Merchant Archive
Thread: How can holding venders after you give merchant up be called an exploit...
DarkDeathDude
Sun Aug 08, 2004 4:48 am
#40
Keeping vendors after you dropped the skills is a blatent exploit. (its not our fault these exploits emerge, but they do)
The problem is it has gone unchecked for so long its not considered an exploit by the majority of the players, their logic being 'everyone else does it'- that being the very reason why it needs to be addessed asap.
BlackEdge
Sun Aug 08, 2004 4:53 am
#41
DarkDeathDude wrote:
Keeping vendors after you dropped the skills is a blatent exploit. (its not our fault these exploits emerge, but they do)
The problem is it has gone unchecked for so long its not considered an exploit by the majority of the players, their logic being 'everyone else does it'- that being the very reason why it needs to be addessed asap.
Making it a year later isn't considered addressing it asap... ^_^
That's their fault, not the people who have considered it the norm. If any of these plans actualy go through, the economy in SWG will be completely destroyed.
DarkDeathDude
Sun Aug 08, 2004 5:04 am
#43
Specialize in high prices to make the precious 110 spots worth their while
and yeh i was refering to the uproar 
BlackEdge
Sun Aug 08, 2004 5:12 am
#44
DarkDeathDude wrote:
Specialize in high prices to make the precious 110 spots worth their while
and yeh i was refering to the uproar
Yeah that's the other problem. I won't be able to sell things individually for new players. I sell them just as much as I do crates. Now I'm going to have to start just selling crates, and maybe fluctuate my prices so I don't sell them out too fast. I see other crafters who do stick around that will be boosting their prices to accomidate for their loss in profits when they're only reduced to 110 per vendor... this will kill the economy period...
This is kind of reminding me with the same thing with entertainers all cheering how the recursive macro will be removed. Talk about selfish, sure it might help them in some way, but there's a chain reactoin. It's going to hurt crafting professions mostly also... so there's 2 nerfs that's for the crafting profession right there...
Merchants in the same boat. Full fledged merchants (which isn't a lot) are all cheering about it (the item cap idea mostly), while the other pure crafters are pissed now that they are really limited on what to do and on a tighter route. Now they have to either become a full-time merchant/crafter, or find a merchant that will actually stock their things.
The problem is, a lot of people will end up closing their merchant accts, causing in a severe drop of vendors available to people. It's very hard to actually trust someone that they will be responsible to sell your products (and the only viable route is to actually exchange the cash on hand and hope the merchant can sell the products to make a profit). That's a big leap of faith, and I doubt it will work.
I can see a chain reaction similar to th erecursive macro. Once merchants get too overburdend with the responsibility of stocking things day in and day out, they'll end up dropping the profession (I don't see how that's even fun). Merchant will be a choir.
Message Edited by BlackEdge on 08-08-2004 07:14 AM
Yogol
Sun Aug 08, 2004 5:23 am
#45
Barris wrote:
When you give up merchant, you give up the SKILL TO PLACE THEM. Putting items on it is not a required skill.
Please tell me you were either drunk or high when you wrote this !
BlackEdge
Sun Aug 08, 2004 5:24 am
#46
Yogol wrote:
Barris wrote:
When you give up merchant, you give up the SKILL TO PLACE THEM. Putting items on it is not a required skill.
Please tell me you were either drunk or high when you wrote this !
? While it does sound quirky, it makes sense.... you do need the skill to place them. If you remove them, you have to get your skills again to place them again.
PhoenixOrion
Sun Aug 08, 2004 5:24 am
#47
Barris wrote:
When you give up merchant, you give up the SKILL TO PLACE THEM. Putting items on it is not a required skill.
It would be like saying being able to equipt a weapon after you have surrendered that profession is an exploit. The venders are the weapons, they can still be used, but not as well... Just like when you do give up skills. Even when you surrender say commando, you can still use their weapons, just not as effectively. Thus is the same for how merchant works now, and it has been working fine for how long?
It'd be just like me giving up smuggler but still being able to slice weapons...
It shouldn't work.
DarkDeathDude
Sun Aug 08, 2004 5:25 am
#48
I got 2 accounts
my main, a doc and CH
and an alt,, master merchant
its the only way i can have provide a decent shop, and still have fun with my main, using CH (which I enjoy)
With this current proposals i would definatley shut up shop and 2nd account, I dont want to play a game i cant enjoy.
I have been hooked on this game for 6 months and nothing has made me this angry before. I really wanted to play this game for ever!! being a StarWars fan ive waited for a game like this since 77!
But i have no doubt i would cancel and alt, probably play my main for a bit, realise i miss the old days, and quit the main too
Barris
Sun Aug 08, 2004 2:33 pm
#49
If you look, placing a vender is the skill. Using it is not. There is no requirement (ie skills) to use the vender, thus why this cannot be called an exploit. If you surrendered it, and the skills to USE the vender (and there are none of which), and were still able to, then yes, it would definatly be an exploit.
However, as it stands, the only skill is being able to place them. Managing them is NOT a skill, as I keep saying. Keeping them is also not a skill. The skill is aquiring them and the ability to place them in a structure, pure, simple, and as flat as that.
This is purely a lack of thought on the dev team's part, but far from any thing that gives a player an advantage over another, since all players have an equal chance of doing this.
Message Edited by Barris on 08-08-2004 02:33 PM
zukem
Sun Aug 08, 2004 4:21 pm
#50
Using this logic. I dropped CH, but I should still be able to call out my tank pets, since at one time I had the skills. They are afterall my pets, and they should still know me since I am their master.
Andreshyyk
Sun Aug 08, 2004 5:13 pm
#51
I think it should be called something less vulgar than an exploit... how about "allowing yourself to benefit from the ineptitude of the programmers?" IF SOE had the forethought to simply make the vendors poof once the owners skill was dropped we would have ALOT fewer EXPLOITERS in the game. I get so sick of SOE and their stupidity CREATING situations like this and then calling THE PLAYER an exploiter... lets take some responsibility for our actions. If I leave my keys in my car and come back later to find it missing who is to blame? Me or the person who... "Allowed themself to benefit from my ineptitude?"
I dont know what it will be that drives me from this game, but I almost look forward to the day when I play a game where the rules do NOT change on a daily basis, and people arent called cheaters for doing what the GD game allows them to do.
Kershakk
Sun Aug 08, 2004 5:55 pm
#52
Barris wrote:
If you look, placing a vender is the skill. Using it is not. There is no requirement (ie skills) to use the vender, thus why this cannot be called an exploit. If you surrendered it, and the skills to USE the vender (and there are none of which), and were still able to, then yes, it would definatly be an exploit.
However, as it stands, the only skill is being able to place them. Managing them is NOT a skill, as I keep saying. Keeping them is also not a skill. The skill is aquiring them and the ability to place them in a structure, pure, simple, and as flat as that.
This is purely a lack of thought on the dev team's part, but far from any thing that gives a player an advantage over another, since all players have an equal chance of doing this.
Message Edited by Barris on 08-08-2004 02:33 PM
/shakes head.
You rules lawyers need to go away, really. Your'e all relying on the wording of the tooltip when you hover over the Vendor skill in the Skill Window which says "Number of vendors allowed to place." or something along those lines.
If the word was not "place" but "operate" as it should have been, we'd not even be having this argument. In fact, there'd be no flipside argument, it wouldn't even be a reversal of then people arguing "operate" should mean "place" - because we all know it makes sense that it's to operate, not just place.
You seem to think that "place" and "use" are seperate issues for vendors. I'm afraid that's just a crock - tell me in what instance would anyone 'place' and vendor but never 'use' it? To place IS to use - even if they are 'using' it for a store greeter and not even selling anything on it.
Vendors to Merchants is like /healDamage to Doctors. It is a class defining ability. People who drop the skill shouldn't have the ability to operate them anymore and that is the end of it.