Merchant Archive
Thread: Item Limit (150)on vinders?
No issue motivated by real technical problems is going to just go away. If there weren't any issues with the vendor database they would never have proposed a change. SInce there are problems with it and the future would just make the problems worse without changes. They will implement some limits. We think they will do it by merchant skills and hope that the final number will be significantly higher that 150.
Why play a merchant if i cant have a monopoly -- and i think it do--?
that is why i did wha ti do.. to be the Jedi of merchants
DocSavag wrote:
No issue motivated by real technical problems is going to just go away. If there weren't any issues with the vendor database they would never have proposed a change. SInce there are problems with it and the future would just make the problems worse without changes. They will implement some limits. We think they will do it by merchant skills and hope that the final number will be significantly higher that 150.
im telling you DOC, mark my words, any vendor limit is just going to make the problem worse as the number of items will stay the same but the number of vendors is going to TRIPLE.
all people are going to do is use mules.
they are only going to compound the database problems. if you and they cant see that then you really dont have any clue how people play these games.
I will go from having 4 vendors to having 10 in the blink of an eye without wasting any more points on our useless skill tree.
I do agree with you on one thing. The fact that a large house takes up 6 lots for 250 items (PA Hall takes up 7 or 9 for the same amount of space) and two mediums take up 4 for 300 is just annoying.
THIS is the problem. Think about it, if devs upped the item storage of buildings (or maybe added a new building that takes up 1 lot, holds 300 items, however it is accessed like the input hopper of a factory just to be "storage"), and upped the extraction rate of all harvesters, it would REDUCE some server problems.
Right now, Lot Swapping is the hot thing. Ten lots simply isn't enough, that's one large house, one medium, and two factories (what I use my lots for, and I know a large house isn't "economical", but I wanted a large house. And, I'm using my extra vendors for storage now)
I know of players who have lot swapped enough to have 100 - 150 lots. IMO, they are doing a *GREAT* service to us crafters, bringing enough resources into the economy (and they aren't pricing the resources rediculously)
Personally, I don't lot swap (I would *love* to have 2-3 more lots, but not really any more than that, and it isn't worth the hassle)
Also, what I think should be done is, as a merchant with no crafting skills, you should be capped at 150 item storage. If you have, say Master Tailor, you get a multiplier (tailors need the most vendor storage, IMO, maybe give them a 10x multiplier, 1500 items per vendor), while a weaponsmith might only get a 2x multiplier (300 per vendor, 1800 total).
MadDoc76 wrote:
I know your the "Merchant Correspondent" But I have a right to vint here on my Opions.,And I think from what I saw on the Development Boards that alot of other Merc's fill the same.,150 is way to low.,,. from 500 to 1000 (Not 1000 up to I said) would be alot better off to begain with.,I'm sorry I mouthed off on you.,, but this just Makes me Mad.,., that every time I turn around something is getting nerffed.,and yes.,, just like many and most of my guild (I said GUILD) it will get so bad that yes I'll go to anther game., I know my 7 accounts don't many crap to you or SONY.,., but I just can't take much more of this.,,.
I really don't see anywhere above where he was flaming you. He is pointing out the facts that have been around for at least a month(ever since the vendor limit was mentioned).
He is not TELLING you want to do. He is saying what is most likely going to happen. People are putting 1000+ items on a vendor just for storage. This wouldn't be an issue if all items on vendors were legitimately up for sale. A 100k stack of materials for 99 million is not legitamately up for sale.
Most assumptions I have seen put 150 at the low end. Novice merchant might have that. Then it might scale up to 500ish with merchant skills. I am assuming this is per vendor as having 6 vendors with a total of 500 items on them is pathetic. Many crafters would defiantly give up crafting.
If you don't like the change that is fine. Thats your opinion. I can't say I am really in favor of the change but I do know why it is needed. The amount of complexity for crafted items is just killing the database on some servers.
Xieflow wrote:
The problem is that more space means more items in the world and more issues for the database. The devs want less items in the game.
I do agree with you on one thing. The fact that a large house takes up 6 lots for 250 items (PA Hall takes up 7 or 9 for the same amount of space) and two mediums take up 4 for 300 is just annoying.
THIS is the problem. Think about it, if devs upped the item storage of buildings (or maybe added a new building that takes up 1 lot, holds 300 items, however it is accessed like the input hopper of a factory just to be "storage"), and upped the extraction rate of all harvesters, it would REDUCE some server problems.
Right now, Lot Swapping is the hot thing. Ten lots simply isn't enough, that's one large house, one medium, and two factories (what I use my lots for, and I know a large house isn't "economical", but I wanted a large house. And, I'm using my extra vendors for storage now)
I know of players who have lot swapped enough to have 100 - 150 lots. IMO, they are doing a *GREAT* service to us crafters, bringing enough resources into the economy (and they aren't pricing the resources rediculously)
Personally, I don't lot swap (I would *love* to have 2-3 more lots, but not really any more than that, and it isn't worth the hassle)
Also, what I think should be done is, as a merchant with no crafting skills, you should be capped at 150 item storage. If you have, say Master Tailor, you get a multiplier (tailors need the most vendor storage, IMO, maybe give them a 10x multiplier, 1500 items per vendor), while a weaponsmith might only get a 2x multiplier (300 per vendor, 1800 total).
That completely goes against the whole point of being a merchant. You are reducing merchants to only being able to sell things if they make them. That the complete opposite direction from where we need to go. Merchants should be selling in volume regardless of whether they actually make any merchandise.
So I have to be a tailor in order to sell tailored goods at volume? I just can't support this idea.
Hhhmmmmm. So tell me how the database "cares" if a particular item on a vendor is legitimately up for sale, or is being stored? Far as I can tell, an item on the database is just an item on the database. Don't they teach you kids about logic? The real issue is not about storage or how vendors are used. The real issue is the stability of the database. This whole vendor cap idea is to try andforestall an unstable database from imploding violently. The database will collapse, but Sony wants to make money for as long as possible before that happens. Once the database collapses in on itself, the game will go away, and then Sony will go on to make some other game. Sony pushed this to market too soon, and now they are feeling the effects. The devs are desperately trying to salvage what they can, because ultimately they will be blamed for bad corporate policy that forced them to market an alpha version of a game. I think I may stick with American companies after this.
Numen wrote:
People are putting 1000+ items on a vendor just for storage. This wouldn't be an issue if all items on vendors were legitimately up for sale. A 100k stack of materials for 99 million is not legitamately up for sale.
LadyGrey wrote:
Hhhmmmmm. So tell me how the database "cares" if a particular item on a vendor is legitimately up for sale, or is being stored? Far as I can tell, an item on the database is just an item on the database. Don't they teach you kids about logic? The real issue is not about storage or how vendors are used. The real issue is the stability of the database. This whole vendor cap idea is to try andforestall an unstable database from imploding violently. The database will collapse, but Sony wants to make money for as long as possible before that happens. Once the database collapses in on itself, the game will go away, and then Sony will go on to make some other game. Sony pushed this to market too soon, and now they are feeling the effects. The devs are desperately trying to salvage what they can, because ultimately they will be blamed for bad corporate policy that forced them to market an alpha version of a game. I think I may stick with American companies after this.
Numen wrote:
People are putting 1000+ items on a vendor just for storage. This wouldn't be an issue if all items on vendors were legitimately up for sale. A 100k stack of materials for 99 million is not legitamately up for sale.
Well we've had our dose of pessimism and conspiracy for the morning
Lighten up its the weekend
Naufragus wrote:
DocSavag wrote:
No issue motivated by real technical problems is going to just go away. If there weren't any issues with the vendor database they would never have proposed a change. SInce there are problems with it and the future would just make the problems worse without changes. They will implement some limits. We think they will do it by merchant skills and hope that the final number will be significantly higher that 150.
im telling you DOC, mark my words, any vendor limit is just going to make the problem worse as the number of items will stay the same but the number of vendors is going to TRIPLE.
all people are going to do is use mules.
they are only going to compound the database problems. if you and they cant see that then you really dont have any clue how people play these games.
I will go from having 4 vendors to having 10 in the blink of an eye without wasting any more points on our useless skill tree.
So what do you suggest they do? They have stated that the database is growing to the point that there are going to be problems. And with the current situation, people canput UNLIMITED numbers into this vendor database.
I think SOE would rather deal with mule issues than an UNLIMITED player storage situation.
I live in a player city on Dantooine. We get insane lag when accessing the vendordatabase. Have you ever tried to access the merchant database on that planet? SOMETHING needs to be done to speed things up.
Hail to the merchants, defenders of the last bastion of sanity in this game! May we fight and die well, going down with ledger book in hand!
Naufragus wrote:
if the problem is that people are using vendors for storage (which i think is a crock since that is like 8 skill points wasted just to store items) then the problem is NOT a vendor problem it is a storage problem....
I have 4 houses and 3 factories full of crap....i might have to add another house as well.
Actually, you have to spend 24 skill points to get the Business3 vendor. But once placed, they can sell back the 24 skill points and still maintain the vendor. (I consider this an exploit, and the developers have said they are working to fix this loophole). Then your small house that can normally hold 150 items can now hold an UNLIMITED number of items.
Rather than a vendorcap, I would much rather see the developers fix this loophole in the system first, then see how much it cleans up the database before they start to swing the nerf bat on vendor item caps.
rexan wrote:
Naufragus wrote:if the problem is that people are using vendors for storage (which i think is a crock since that is like 8 skill points wasted just to store items) then the problem is NOT a vendor problem it is a storage problem....
I have 4 houses and 3 factories full of crap....i might have to add another house as well.
Actually, you have to spend 24 skill points to get the Business3 vendor. But once placed, they can sell back the 24 skill points and still maintain the vendor. (I consider this an exploit, and the developers have said they are working to fix this loophole). Then your small house that can normally hold 150 items can now hold an UNLIMITED number of items.
Rather than a vendor cap, I would much rather see the developers fix this loophole in the system first, then see how much it cleans up the database before they start to swing the nerf bat on vendor item caps.
That is EXACTLY what I'd like to see too.. If they clean out all those vendors that are storing huge amounts of items for non merchants, and the problem does not improve, I would be much more willing to accept this nerf.. But the unwilingness to even fix that first just infuriates me..