Merchant Archive

Okay I'm 2001 in Merchant and I intend to keep those skills (I like having a humanoid bartender greeting customers and another in the corner of my cantina offering spices). I completely agree that to keep those abilities should require me to keep my skills. The question then becomes how to make this so.

Not allowing surrendering of Management if you have too many vendors is the perfect longterm solution. I'd say push for this - as well as having a plan for the 'transition'.

I'd say maybe disabling all vendors of someone with too many until they have the right number again (checking each time they destroy a vendor) would work.

As for the rest of the issues...they don't effect me too much. Maybe getting rid of the vendor at Business III would be good for you but i can't see it happening. Would you be happy if Novice contained efficiency that say halved the maintenance cost of vendors, and that at Business III you could have one still but it would be expensive (about twice the current cost)?

Thanks DocSavag & fond wishes to Marquie for getting these noticed and debated over the past months.

I love being a merchant.

# 2& 3 are really annoying, but survivable by workarounds

#4) 3 opinions

I have resisted for many months the notion of removing the Artisan Bus III terminal vendor. But afterplaying a master merchant and master artisan since the earliest days, I am forced to agree with the concept more and more. If you want to make merchants stronger and a more viable class, then forcing the crafting public to seek them out for sales is the best way to generate interest, interdependance and dialogue.

Give merchants a 2% discount on purchases per Eff level & Master, or make a "haggle" skill like slicing. This would allowMaster Merchants to buy from other player's vendors andtravel ticket vendors at a max 10% discount. It's not much, but it would be huge in helping us buy and sell at a profit. This "discount" programming isalreadyin gamefor smugglers slicing terminals for extra credits.

Instead of extra lots, have Managment branch grant1 declared shop (like declared residence) for every skill level and one additional for master. Perhaps also make the level of the building increase with the Effeciency skill as well, allowing for some larger buildings. This would allow master merchants to have 5 shops besides their normal 10 lots.

#5) I can't figure out why we are even debating this. Vendors are not pets, or blasters, or houses. At best they arecredit harvestors. You can't continue to surveyif you give up that artisan branch; you should not get to keep the merchant DEFINING TRAIT if you give up merchant.

#?) just thoughts

We appreciate the tents, but they lack charm or style. Every Ranger camp draws the player to it like a magnet because of it's "cool" factor. Merchant tents have no grandure, and they don't fit in well with any planets architecture.The additionof any distinctive furniture would also be welcomed and appreciated.

Figure out a way to make merchants contribute in the GCW, otherwise we are basically rewarded for being neutral.

Well, i think there are some great ideas so far. In regards to #4, the lack of tools to make good business arrangements with artisans, i have previously posted a thread related to this but recieved almost no feed back. I am of course assuming this means no one like the idea, but being the persistent person that i am i'm going to mention it here.

My original post can be found here if anyone is interested:

forums.station.sony.com/swg/board/message?board.id=merchant&message.id=17281

Basically, i'd like a resource contracts skill for merchants. My thought was to tie it to harvester deeds. With this skill, merchants can set a harvester deed as a contract in which they input/select a resource, price per unit, and desired amount of the resource. The merchant would also be allowed to place maintenance and power directly into the deed. They could place a lower price per unit and supplymaintenance and power, higher price and supply neither, or in between supplying one or the othe. Until the contract is removed, the deed can be used for nothing else.

The merchant could then solicit artisans individually or leave the contract on their own vendor or on the bazaar (perhaps to be purchased for 1 credit). They would be filed under there own section for easy browsing. Viewing the deed would list who created the contract and what the above parameters are.A person wishing to take the contract could get the deed from the merchant or purchase off the bazaar. They then select "accept contract" from radial menu (this is to tie the contract to them for payment and tracking purposes). They then locate a resource location and place the harvester (these could also be used by non surveyors where they paysomeone for a resource waypoint or make agreement where merchant provides them with a waypoint).

They would recieve email notification when the contract amount had been reached or the hopper was full (please don't even bother posting about the apparent difficulties of implementing appropriate email notifications for merchant skills...yes, i know this isn't even adequate for our current skill set). They could then pick up the harvester and return to merchant or merchants vendor. Merchant takes deed and selects "fulfill contract"(only available to creator of the contract)from radial menu which causes resources to be deposited into his/her inventory and the appropriate fee is paid to the artisan. My thought is to lock the hopper so that resource can only be accessed by the merchant who created the contract and not the person accepting it, but this isn't strictly necessary.

For me, this would add to emersion and depth of merchant profession and would also make me feel more comfortable about turning over my 80k heavy harvester to a stranger without worrying about them not returning it or deciding they wanted to keep the contract resource for themselves and return an empty harvester after they'd used it (this has never happened to me or anyone i've spoken with, it's just something that always runs throught the back of my head when i turn over a harvester for a resource contract).

Could this be to difficult a programming task to implement? Sure. Could this skill prove to be so buggy that it is just a subject for constant grief? I suppose. But, do i think it could add to the merchant profession and provide for easier interaction between merchants and artisans? Absolutely.

Just my two credits worth.

OK, my 2 credits:

Issue #4: Get a consignment interface:

Haruspex has already detailed this, and beautifully I might add. All my vendors and sales work like this, except I have to do the math myself. Automating this would save time and headaches.

Issue #5: Vendors and Vendor skills:

I say, if you surrender a skill, you should lose the abilities that came with that skill ... when i surrendered range support 3, i could no longer do a Warning Shot. If people surrender Management/Hiring, they should lose vendors ...

And for those who say it will unfairly penalize those with large inventory, then lets give them a grace period to remove their stuff. However, let's not baby them ... vendors are serious stuff, and the skills associated should not be taken for granted. If you are currently dependent on them for something, then you need to make arrangements AHEAD OF TIME for when you surrender those skills ...

When i surrendered warning shot, i didnt do it while being attacked by razor cats ... that's just basic safety.

#5 is a no brainer any other skill your drop you lose the advantage of that skill block. If you drop a skill and keep the vendor your exploting the system plain and simple.

Master Merchant really does not come with a significant incentive to do it. I have it but it is stilla lame master compared to other professions. I would like to see Master Merchants get another vendor and maybe increased item storage in buildings. Or maybe add a new building called Warehouse that arch make but only a master merchant can place. I run a huge multi planet bussiness and my biggest frustration is storage. The current storage caps are stupid and insane. They do not stop me from making items, they just force me to tie up more lots in small houses to store it. Having to run between 12 houses to fid stuff is just a waste of time and serves no useful purpose. I have multiple accounts and maintain multiple masters. It would be really nice if I could put all my sub compents in one PA and my for sale in a PA.

As for tools permission list on the vendors would be great. If you post it you should get the money that is how the bizzare works so why can they not do that with vendors. At the very least allow admin permissions like we have on houses and harvesters.

---

TheSorceress wrote:

...with large inventory, then lets give them a grace period to remove their stuff. However, let's not baby them ... vendors are serious stuff, and the skills associated should not be taken for granted. If you are currently dependent on them for something, then you need to make arrangements AHEAD OF TIME for when you surrender those skills ...

When i surrendered warning shot, i didnt do it while being attacked by razor cats ... that's just basic safety.

---

That last line made me smile. Yes giving up skill boxes is a serious affair (and why you have to click two buttons and type the word "yes" to do it)

You should be prepared for what is going to happen. We have to strike a balance though because there are probbably thousands of "illegal" vendors in the various galaxies that would be affected. And I don't want mistakes and ignorance to cause people to lost items (as I've stated before we have enough item loss going on every day already).

I still remain convinced that it is enough to disable the vendors (sending an email to the owner that their lack of skills have caused the vendor to be unable to continue to sell merchandise)

This would give them effectively something like 30-60 days to retrieve their items or get the skills back before they are sent to the stock room and removed from the world.

Prior to all of this implemented there needs to be a campaign by the devs to inform everyone with a vendor that they must maintain their skill points to continue to operate.

("The Imperial Office of Business Regulation has noticed an increasing number of merchant shops being operated without the proper certifications. If you are operating a vendor without the skill to do so your vendor will soon be disabled.")

5. Currently it is possible to give up practically all of your merchant
skills without having to give up the vendors that you received as a benefit
of those skills.

We would like to see some suggested changes that would address this
situation. We agree in principle that Merchant Skills should not be
surrendered without the loss of the benefits of those skills.

This reply and the attitude that accompanies it is atrocious! "We agree in principle" ??? What is that about. If I had mastered commando and could give up all of my skills and still get all the bonuses this would be a top priority to be fixed for SOE. This laissez-faire attitude to an obvious problem that undermines and entire profession should not be tolerated by any of us. For months this has been brought up, for months we have heard nothing more than "We recognize this but we are not nor do we have any plans to do anything about it." Why should we have to suggest a fix for this? JUST REMOVE THE ABILITIES!

As for what to do about the vendors.. when a level is unlearned this should disable all vendors and force you to put up knew ones, allowing you to remove from the vendors and thats it. This will create a situation where you can only place per your allowed skill level. I assure you we as a profession would gladly go thru this. That is those of us who are not just exploiting a huge, glaring and SOE SUPPORTED BUG!

I would like to apologize for the tone of this post but I justcannot. All of the talking in the world has done nothing for us. I am pleased with the other recentfixes to the profession but lets be honest If everyone can easily get around using a merchant by being one for a week and surrendering the skills..... Then we are being undermined by SOE. I think the only reason this is not being changed is that all of the professions exploit this and dont want it changed. DO THE RIGHT THING SONY!

---

Uutinee wrote:

---

5. Currently it is possible to give up practically all of your merchant
skills without having to give up the vendors that you received as a benefit
of those skills.

We would like to see some suggested changes that would address this
situation. We agree in principle that Merchant Skills should not be
surrendered without the loss of the benefits of those skills.

---

This reply and the attitude that accompanies it is atrocious! "We agree in principle" ??? What is that about. If I had mastered commando and could give up all of my skills and still get all the bonuses this would be a top priority to be fixed for SOE. This laissez-faire attitude to an obvious problem that undermines and entire profession should not be tolerated by any of us. For months this has been brought up, for months we have heard nothing more than "We recognize this but we are not nor do we have any plans to do anything about it." Why should we have to suggest a fix for this? JUST REMOVE THE ABILITIES!

As for what to do about the vendors.. when a level is unlearned this should disable all vendors and force you to put up knew ones, allowing you to remove from the vendors and thats it. This will create a situation where you can only place per your allowed skill level. I assure you we as a profession would gladly go thru this. That is those of us who are not just exploiting a huge, glaring and SOE SUPPORTED BUG!

I would like to apologize for the tone of this post but I justcannot. All of the talking in the world has done nothing for us. I am pleased with the other recentfixes to the profession but lets be honest If everyone can easily get around using a merchant by being one for a week and surrendering the skills..... Then we are being undermined by SOE. I think the only reason this is not being changed is that all of the professions exploit this and dont want it changed. DO THE RIGHT THING SONY!

---

Lets not get carried away. The language is meant to say that the devs agree that it shouldn't be possible but would like suggestions on how to resolve it. That is better than silence on the issue and it is better than them saying "We don't think it is a problem."

Our job at this point is to come up with reasonable ways to stop the use of skill perks without skills without causing undue damage to people who have been doing it. It is not an exploit in the traditional sense.

---

Haruspex77 wrote:

Item 4 really really has to support consignment sales. There is significant new code needed, it might as well handle more that we want with one update.

The resale vendor transaction has 4 steps if it is a concession sale.

1) Original owner (often Manufacturer) delivers item (Offer to vendor)

At this step the owner's name should be captured, and the owner should specify what they expect to get from the sale. They should also have a check box for whether they are willing to accept a consignment (of up to 30 days) or if they insist that the merchant take ownership of the item.

2) Merchant accepts or rejects the offer.

Merchant must be able to reject even a consignment offer, as I don't want a chance cube labled "Jedi Holocron" on MY vendor. Rejected items (as now) drop to owner's "available items" list.

If accepted, the item goes into stockroom, but visibly retains owner name and wholesale cost if consignment. Non-consignment sales make Merchant the owner. Whether accepted or rejected the offer generates an email.

3) Merchant puts the item up for sale, owner and wholesale cost are retained but not displayed for customers. Merchant selects the retail price, and provides a (or perhaps edits an owner provided?) description. The 30 day clock should start from the time of the offer on consignment sales, so the owner knows what the timing is. Sales from the merchant's inventory might allow the Merchant to set a wholesale price as a cost memo.

4) The item is sold. The owner gets the wholesale price, and the merchant gets the difference as bank deposits. Both get email but the owner is not told the selling price, the merchant's shows both. No owner email is generated if the Merchant is the owner.

There is enough change to the code and forms here, so they might as well combine that with some other features.

A list of buyers with % of base price, and a check box to allow/refuse sale. The buyer list is processed from the top down, and consistes of an individual name, a guild, a faction, or "All". The first match applies, and an empty list defaults to All/100%/allow.

So if the list reads:

John/100%/Allow
All/100%/ Refuse

Only John could buy the item and he would be charged the stated price.

If the list read:

John/50%/Allow
Tom/100%/Refuse
guild:XXX/75%/Allow
Rebel/200%/Allow
All/100%/ Allow

Then John could buy the item at half price (whether or not he was a rebel or guild member), Tom couldn't buy it at all, guild XXX members could buy it at 75%, rebels would have to pay double (unless they were in the guild), and everybody else would be able to buy it at the stated price.

That feature handles pre-arranged sales on the same vendor with other items, as well as all the selectivity anybody might want. The list entries should be done in a way that makes cut&paste easy, since many items would be the same. If the feature isn't used, the default is how things are today.

---

An exploit is any use of a skill, ability or game mechanism that was not intended and is deemed to bedetrimental to the gameplay environment.. I would hope that this was not intended. What it is is a HUGE oversight in the design of the game and apparantly one that is code heavy enough that they want to delay fixing it with the responses we have been getting for the last 3 monthswhile they placate a profession with more political clout!

The complete destabilization of the game.. at least on Bloodfin, from the holocron mania has only brought this problem into greater focus. Now there are so few crafters in the game, again I am speaking of bloodfin, that when 50% or 60% or even 30% utilize this exploit our business dies. I went from making good credits with hard work ensuring I had good merchandise at good prices and did very well in taking care of my suppliers, giving them discounts on resources and components to help them control their costs and comming back to me, to barely able to scrape up stuff to sell that i did not drill pump or absorb from the sun!

While at university I sold tires at SAMS.. I had the one thing everyone needed and no one wanted to buy. Merchants used to be needed... we were a neccessary evil for many people and I tried very hard to make that a pleasant experience that worked for them.. i.e. getting their resources for them etc.. But now we are just Evil and not at all neccessary!

Why does EVERYONE who tries to make an arguement for letting non merchants keep their vendors use such flawed comparisons:

Schematics are not limited to use by someone with the skill to make them. Once they are made they can be used by anyone with the proper factory.

Buildings are not limited to use by architects. They can be used by anyone (or in the case of specific buildings they can be used by anyone who qualifies)

What about Cantinas, Theaters, and Hospitals. They aren't my lookout that is up to their own forums and correspondants but they should be handled the same way. If you are no longer a master musician or entertainer and you own a structure that requires you to be the maintenance on them should go through the roof. You don't have the skill you know you have to have to operate them. Don't do it. If you do you will be punished by punatively higher maintenance.

The whole point is that people are taking the merchant profession..getting what they want out of it and getting free Skill Points by giving up the skills knowing they won't lose any functionality. That is wrong. It cheapens the profession. It damages the whole challenge of skill points in the first place and it takes an avenue of income out of the hands of the merchants who are keeping their skills.

I'll give you a real life example. I made a lot of credits from a relationship with a weaponsmith who didn't have the skill points for merchant and didn't know she could or didn'twant to keep those vendors without the skills. If she had kept her vendors I would have lost out on millions of credits in revenue. She needed a merchant, she couldn't do it on her own and have the other skills she wanted. She paid me to do it for her. Today she would have probably posted a message in this forum asking what would happen, found out "nothing" and would have kept on selling on her vendors without the skill.

We need better tools to help us handle relationships like those and protections from people taking our business without even tying up skill points.

I don't really support non merchants even being admins on vendors because operating the vendor is what you do as a merchant. Giving admin to a non mechant and letting you "rent" the vendor to me devaules you whole place in the transaction. I think there should be admins for vendors but they should have to be Merchants themselves. This would allow you to share the workload with an apprentice and effectively multiply the number of vendors your establishment could operate without removing merchants from the transaction.

I support new tools to allow consignment sales and better offer mechanisms to make business relationships easier to forge. But those should be relationships not simple vendor rental fees.

That is just my opinion.

Issue #5 should be bumped to Issue #1. I have 3 vendors and kept the skills required for these vendors.....mainly because I just never needed the skill points. I did however place a merchant tent and drop the skills afterwards. I 100% without a doubt agree that this should not be possible....but it is so I did it because I wanted a tent and my the skill points back.....I did it because it is possible.

I also agree that something should be done to disable vendors and tents after the skills are surrendered. I disagree with the fix of increasing the maintenance though. I have 1 vendor in my tent with over 1,000 items. It would take me a significant amount of time to move the items out of my tent. Maybe I dug my own grave......

but I think a nice and simple solution would be to just patch the darn things so when you surrender the skill it makes it impossible to do so if you have a vendor or tent placed. For those with vendors and tents already placed without the skills they shouldget a1 week timer to move items before the vendors or tents get deleted. Thereafter, no one will be able to use this "exploit," basically a clean slate for all with minimal damage and whining (unless I'm missing something).

I might add that a HUGE NOTICE in advance of this patch would be really really really really nice.