Merchant Archive
Thread: How can holding venders after you give merchant up be called an exploit...
Kershakk wrote:
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.
I just point out that the ability to use them is not a skill
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.
Agreed
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.
Place and use are seperate issues. Placing and using a vender are very different, one just has to do with putting it down, the other has to do with maintaining and the use of the vender.
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.
So you should have to keep the skill (which in all truth, is almost completely useless, since all it pertains to is placing venders, the cause of this discussion) while gimping your current template? If it was corrected early on, this would not be an issue, also if they programed more than on just surface level. Sadly they didn't, and it's this lack of programing that keeps it from being an exploit.
If you want to make comparisons, lets say it would be the equivelant of an artisan being able to craft ONE item after dropping master, as many times as they want. And if they wanted to change the one item they could craft, then they would have to grind artisan again. Not so usefull. That is similar to the way people who drop merchant are limited in how they can use their merchants. Changes are needed for example planet adds being available only to merchants, and various other limits eg on items and numbers of vendors available to non merchants.
Now, if someone grinded bussines 3 and got to place one vendor, (possibly with an item limit) chosing from a very limited choice of vendors, not being able to use planet add or merchant barking, then dropping bussiness 3 and keeping the vendor, HOW would they have an unfair advantage over merchants? I agree some things need to change but not so drastically, both in the limits to items for merchants, and for allowing non merchants to have vendors.
Barris wrote:
/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.
I just point out that the ability to use them is not a skill
It should be, and that's the key. It is, after all, in the Skill Window. It is class defining. Scouts harvest organics, medics heal wounds, merchants operate vendors. SUre there are other smaller perks in merchant than just vendor ops, but 95% of the kickback from Merchant is vendors, which can be maintained for no skill investment. Vendors are not a byproduct - or an end result - or a marketable product - vendors are the extension of Merchant as a profession - just like harvest is the scout, healDamage is to Medic, and so forth.
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.
Place and use are seperate issues. Placing and using a vender are very different, one just has to do with putting it down, the other has to do with maintaining and the use of the vender.
That's just trying to cut fine lines and half truths. The acts might involve different commands but the intent of placing and using makes them Siamese Twins. You don't just place vendors without intent to use them - unless you want to tell me you learned merchant, placed vendors, and never use them as vendors were meant to be used. Forgive the analogy, but it's just like you don't put on a condom if you don't intend to .... you know. The former without the latter is a rather pointless exercise (unless you're learning or something, but that shouldn't take you all of 5 minutes to sort that all out). You're trying to say the difference between a Merchant-skilled run vendor and a no skill point run Vendor is that the no skill operator cannot change ad barks or change clothing. Wow, crippling. Can I get the ability to throw CM poisons that last half a tick less than if I was a full CM? That's about the difference in raw kickback.
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.
So you should have to keep the skill (which in all truth, is almost completely useless, since all it pertains to is placing venders, the cause of this discussion) while gimping your current template? If it was corrected early on, this would not be an issue, also if they programed more than on just surface level. Sadly they didn't, and it's this lack of programing that keeps it from being an exploit.
/laugh - "gimping" the template? That's your sole drive? The truth comes out. Well I'm afraid there's some headline news for you. You want the benefit, you need to spend the skill points - for any profession - EVEN merchant. If you are deriving a benefit from the vendors, I'm afraid you have to "bust your template" and spend the skill points. You have to decide what's more important to you, vendors, or your 'template'. The time for having your cake and eating it is over.
Kershakk wrote:
Barris wrote:
/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.
I just point out that the ability to use them is not a skill
It should be, and that's the key. It is, after all, in the Skill Window. It is class defining. Scouts harvest organics, medics heal wounds, merchants operate vendors. SUre there are other smaller perks in merchant than just vendor ops, but 95% of the kickback from Merchant is vendors, which can be maintained for no skill investment. Vendors are not a byproduct - or an end result - or a marketable product - vendors are the extension of Merchant as a profession - just like harvest is the scout, healDamage is to Medic, and so forth.
As it stands, venders are a byproduct...
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.
Place and use are seperate issues. Placing and using a vender are very different, one just has to do with putting it down, the other has to do with maintaining and the use of the vender.
That's just trying to cut fine lines and half truths. The acts might involve different commands but the intent of placing and using makes them Siamese Twins. You don't just place vendors without intent to use them - unless you want to tell me you learned merchant, placed vendors, and never use them as vendors were meant to be used. Forgive the analogy, but it's just like you don't put on a condom if you don't intend to .... you know. The former without the latter is a rather pointless exercise (unless you're learning or something, but that shouldn't take you all of 5 minutes to sort that all out). You're trying to say the difference between a Merchant-skilled run vendor and a no skill point run Vendor is that the no skill operator cannot change ad barks or change clothing. Wow, crippling. Can I get the ability to throw CM poisons that last half a tick less than if I was a full CM? That's about the difference in raw kickback.
Actually, novice CM's do half the damage of full cms.
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.
So you should have to keep the skill (which in all truth, is almost completely useless, since all it pertains to is placing venders, the cause of this discussion) while gimping your current template? If it was corrected early on, this would not be an issue, also if they programed more than on just surface level. Sadly they didn't, and it's this lack of programing that keeps it from being an exploit.
/laugh - "gimping" the template? That's your sole drive? The truth comes out. Well I'm afraid there's some headline news for you. You want the benefit, you need to spend the skill points - for any profession - EVEN merchant. If you are deriving a benefit from the vendors, I'm afraid you have to "bust your template" and spend the skill points. You have to decide what's more important to you, vendors, or your 'template'. The time for having your cake and eating it is over.
It's gimping anyones template who is a duel crafter, or two pve combined professions that make a living selling looted items.
I want them to make it so you can't keep cantinas and med centers with out the ability to place them when this goes through as well. It is the exact same thing. It would be like telling someone to keep 0/4/0/0 CM (the ability to place a hospital) while it's pointless to have to.
Barris wrote:
Kershakk wrote:
Barris wrote:
/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.
I just point out that the ability to use them is not a skill
It should be, and that's the key. It is, after all, in the Skill Window. It is class defining. Scouts harvest organics, medics heal wounds, merchants operate vendors. SUre there are other smaller perks in merchant than just vendor ops, but 95% of the kickback from Merchant is vendors, which can be maintained for no skill investment. Vendors are not a byproduct - or an end result - or a marketable product - vendors are the extension of Merchant as a profession - just like harvest is the scout, healDamage is to Medic, and so forth.
As it stands, venders are a byproduct...
And it shouldn't be, and we all know that.
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.
Place and use are seperate issues. Placing and using a vender are very different, one just has to do with putting it down, the other has to do with maintaining and the use of the vender.
That's just trying to cut fine lines and half truths. The acts might involve different commands but the intent of placing and using makes them Siamese Twins. You don't just place vendors without intent to use them - unless you want to tell me you learned merchant, placed vendors, and never use them as vendors were meant to be used. Forgive the analogy, but it's just like you don't put on a condom if you don't intend to .... you know. The former without the latter is a rather pointless exercise (unless you're learning or something, but that shouldn't take you all of 5 minutes to sort that all out). You're trying to say the difference between a Merchant-skilled run vendor and a no skill point run Vendor is that the no skill operator cannot change ad barks or change clothing. Wow, crippling. Can I get the ability to throw CM poisons that last half a tick less than if I was a full CM? That's about the difference in raw kickback.
You show me a single player who learned merchant, 'placed' vendors and dropped all the skills, and NEVER uses them, then you'd have some evidence that 'place' and 'use' are seperate intentions. Otherwise, they are the same.
Actually, novice CM's do half the damage of full cms.
/shrug - so attack my analogy, if not my point. How about having enhancepacks that anyone can use but only doctors can make? Having fully fledged field bases anyone can place, but only scouts can make? Having everyone be able to use any level pet, but only CH's can tame them? They're equivalent of trying to say only merchants can place vendors but anyone can use them.
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.
So you should have to keep the skill (which in all truth, is almost completely useless, since all it pertains to is placing venders, the cause of this discussion) while gimping your current template? If it was corrected early on, this would not be an issue, also if they programed more than on just surface level. Sadly they didn't, and it's this lack of programing that keeps it from being an exploit.
/laugh - "gimping" the template? That's your sole drive? The truth comes out. Well I'm afraid there's some headline news for you. You want the benefit, you need to spend the skill points - for any profession - EVEN merchant. If you are deriving a benefit from the vendors, I'm afraid you have to "bust your template" and spend the skill points. You have to decide what's more important to you, vendors, or your 'template'. The time for having your cake and eating it is over.
It's gimping anyones template who is a duel crafter, or two pve combined professions that make a living selling looted items.
I want them to make it so you can't keep cantinas and med centers with out the ability to place them when this goes through as well. It is the exact same thing. It would be like telling someone to keep 0/4/0/0 CM (the ability to place a hospital) while it's pointless to have to.
The irony is it's NOT pointless. If it was a pointless feature, why are you so worked up about losing it? If it's no big deal, then you shouldn't care at all. But it isn't a pointless tree if it meant you had to hold those boxes to keep those vendors. We've all been spoiled by getting away with it before, but the time is at hand when it's rectified.
You just have to make the choices you should have done before. If you want to stay a dual crafter, you'll have to find a merchant to partner with. If you want dual combat professions and sell loot, you'll have to find a merchant. If however you want to be totally self sufficient in production all the way to retail, then you have to make choices.
I'd agree that cantinas and med centres must be maintained by someone with the appropriate skills.
Barris wrote:
I was never a holo grinder, thank you, nor do I have a jedi. My logic is fine actually. For combat, you master commando, give up master, go down to say just 0/0/1/0 (one box into the flame thrower tree), you still can use the flame thrower, but you can't use the same specials (like with giving up parts of merchant. You can give it up completely, but you can't use it effectively (and where as the main part of the vender, clothing, advertisement, all the benefits).
Kershakk wrote:
Barris wrote:
Kershakk wrote:
Barris wrote:
/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.
I just point out that the ability to use them is not a skill
It should be, and that's the key. It is, after all, in the Skill Window. It is class defining. Scouts harvest organics, medics heal wounds, merchants operate vendors. SUre there are other smaller perks in merchant than just vendor ops, but 95% of the kickback from Merchant is vendors, which can be maintained for no skill investment. Vendors are not a byproduct - or an end result - or a marketable product - vendors are the extension of Merchant as a profession - just like harvest is the scout, healDamage is to Medic, and so forth.
As it stands, venders are a byproduct...
And it shouldn't be, and we all know that.
Agreed
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.
Place and use are seperate issues. Placing and using a vender are very different, one just has to do with putting it down, the other has to do with maintaining and the use of the vender.
That's just trying to cut fine lines and half truths. The acts might involve different commands but the intent of placing and using makes them Siamese Twins. You don't just place vendors without intent to use them - unless you want to tell me you learned merchant, placed vendors, and never use them as vendors were meant to be used. Forgive the analogy, but it's just like you don't put on a condom if you don't intend to .... you know. The former without the latter is a rather pointless exercise (unless you're learning or something, but that shouldn't take you all of 5 minutes to sort that all out). You're trying to say the difference between a Merchant-skilled run vendor and a no skill point run Vendor is that the no skill operator cannot change ad barks or change clothing. Wow, crippling. Can I get the ability to throw CM poisons that last half a tick less than if I was a full CM? That's about the difference in raw kickback.
You show me a single player who learned merchant, 'placed' vendors and dropped all the skills, and NEVER uses them, then you'd have some evidence that 'place' and 'use' are seperate intentions. Otherwise, they are the same.
Actually, novice CM's do half the damage of full cms.
/shrug - so attack my analogy, if not my point. How about having enhancepacks that anyone can use but only doctors can make? Having fully fledged field bases anyone can place, but only scouts can make? Having everyone be able to use any level pet, but only CH's can tame them? They're equivalent of trying to say only merchants can place vendors but anyone can use them.
Wasn't meant to attack your analogy, as I did get the just of it. It was only for a lack of better words (**gasps at admiting that...**)
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.
So you should have to keep the skill (which in all truth, is almost completely useless, since all it pertains to is placing venders, the cause of this discussion) while gimping your current template? If it was corrected early on, this would not be an issue, also if they programed more than on just surface level. Sadly they didn't, and it's this lack of programing that keeps it from being an exploit.
/laugh - "gimping" the template? That's your sole drive? The truth comes out. Well I'm afraid there's some headline news for you. You want the benefit, you need to spend the skill points - for any profession - EVEN merchant. If you are deriving a benefit from the vendors, I'm afraid you have to "bust your template" and spend the skill points. You have to decide what's more important to you, vendors, or your 'template'. The time for having your cake and eating it is over.
It's gimping anyones template who is a duel crafter, or two pve combined professions that make a living selling looted items.
I want them to make it so you can't keep cantinas and med centers with out the ability to place them when this goes through as well. It is the exact same thing. It would be like telling someone to keep 0/4/0/0 CM (the ability to place a hospital) while it's pointless to have to.
The irony is it's NOT pointless. If it was a pointless feature, why are you so worked up about losing it? If it's no big deal, then you shouldn't care at all. But it isn't a pointless tree if it meant you had to hold those boxes to keep those vendors. We've all been spoiled by getting away with it before, but the time is at hand when it's rectified.
You just have to make the choices you should have done before. If you want to stay a dual crafter, you'll have to find a merchant to partner with. If you want dual combat professions and sell loot, you'll have to find a merchant. If however you want to be totally self sufficient in production all the way to retail, then you have to make choices.
I'd agree that cantinas and med centres must be maintained by someone with the appropriate skills.
I do not mean the profession/skills are pointless. I mean having to keep them when they are of very little real value is. I love my venders, the profession is far from pointless, but having to let it eat my skill points up just to keep them operational is a pain.
With having to go through another person to sell items, you encounter the problem of dishonest people, bugs, and a number of other issues that will make for problems. It would be like having a weaponsmith tell some merchant to sell this krayted gun, it's just not a safe transaction
Ok the thread was getting anorexic, so I stuffed it full of KFC.
Barris wrote:
/shrug - so attack my analogy, if not my point. How about having enhancepacks that anyone can use but only doctors can make? Having fully fledged field bases anyone can place, but only scouts can make? Having everyone be able to use any level pet, but only CH's can tame them? They're equivalent of trying to say only merchants can place vendors but anyone can use them.
Wasn't meant to attack your analogy, as I did get the just of it. It was only for a lack of better words (**gasps at admiting that...**)
Well perhaps wasn't so much an attack but an attempt to refute
The irony is it's NOT pointless. If it was a pointless feature, why are you so worked up about losing it? If it's no big deal, then you shouldn't care at all. But it isn't a pointless tree if it meant you had to hold those boxes to keep those vendors. We've all been spoiled by getting away with it before, but the time is at hand when it's rectified.
You just have to make the choices you should have done before. If you want to stay a dual crafter, you'll have to find a merchant to partner with. If you want dual combat professions and sell loot, you'll have to find a merchant. If however you want to be totally self sufficient in production all the way to retail, then you have to make choices.
I'd agree that cantinas and med centres must be maintained by someone with the appropriate skills.
I do not mean the profession/skills are pointless. I mean having to keep them when they are of very little real value is. I love my venders, the profession is far from pointless, but having to let it eat my skill points up just to keep them operational is a pain.
With having to go through another person to sell items, you encounter the problem of dishonest people, bugs, and a number of other issues that will make for problems. It would be like having a weaponsmith tell some merchant to sell this krayted gun, it's just not a safe transaction
*throws hands in air* There we go again. "Having to keep them when they are of very little value" you say is pointless. Yet you're obviously gaining benefit out of them. What you're really saying is - I've been able to get away with no SP expenditure to get all the benefits of vendors and now this is going to take away my cake. The benefits I get from this tree are pointless if I can't have them for free, that's what you're saying.
Pointless is using a torch in broad daylight.
Pointless is trying to dry yourself off with a towel - when you're still standing in the shower.
Pointless is the Vendors Tree if you could get all the benefits without keeping the tree.
Pointless is what it was. Making vendor retention tied to the Vendors Tree gives it a POINT.
As for krayt weapons, then either find a Merchant you trust, or do the sale manually. Besides, any Merchant that pulls a stunt like that would have his/her reputation destroyed and find themselves out of suppliers.
Kershakk wrote:
Ok the thread was getting anorexic, so I stuffed it full of KFC.
Barris wrote:
/shrug - so attack my analogy, if not my point. How about having enhancepacks that anyone can use but only doctors can make? Having fully fledged field bases anyone can place, but only scouts can make? Having everyone be able to use any level pet, but only CH's can tame them? They're equivalent of trying to say only merchants can place vendors but anyone can use them.
Wasn't meant to attack your analogy, as I did get the just of it. It was only for a lack of better words (**gasps at admiting that...**)
Well perhaps wasn't so much an attack but an attempt to refute
The irony is it's NOT pointless. If it was a pointless feature, why are you so worked up about losing it? If it's no big deal, then you shouldn't care at all. But it isn't a pointless tree if it meant you had to hold those boxes to keep those vendors. We've all been spoiled by getting away with it before, but the time is at hand when it's rectified.
You just have to make the choices you should have done before. If you want to stay a dual crafter, you'll have to find a merchant to partner with. If you want dual combat professions and sell loot, you'll have to find a merchant. If however you want to be totally self sufficient in production all the way to retail, then you have to make choices.
I'd agree that cantinas and med centres must be maintained by someone with the appropriate skills.
I do not mean the profession/skills are pointless. I mean having to keep them when they are of very little real value is. I love my venders, the profession is far from pointless, but having to let it eat my skill points up just to keep them operational is a pain.
With having to go through another person to sell items, you encounter the problem of dishonest people, bugs, and a number of other issues that will make for problems. It would be like having a weaponsmith tell some merchant to sell this krayted gun, it's just not a safe transaction
*throws hands in air* There we go again. "Having to keep them when they are of very little value" you say is pointless. Yet you're obviously gaining benefit out of them. What you're really saying is - I've been able to get away with no SP expenditure to get all the benefits of vendors and now this is going to take away my cake. The benefits I get from this tree are pointless if I can't have them for free, that's what you're saying.
Pointless is using a torch in broad daylight.
Pointless is trying to dry yourself off with a towel - when you're still standing in the shower.
Pointless is the Vendors Tree if you could get all the benefits without keeping the tree.
Pointless is what it was. Making vendor retention tied to the Vendors Tree gives it a POINT.
As for krayt weapons, then either find a Merchant you trust, or do the sale manually. Besides, any Merchant that pulls a stunt like that would have his/her reputation destroyed and find themselves out of suppliers.
Ok, I'll reword it, as I do see your argument. It is a pain/annoyance to have to keep this skill tree inorder to keep venders operational. Since by having to keep it, it will criple a template, be it a smuggler crafter (AS/WS), or myself, a PvE / PvPer. My living comes from looting and selling krayt goods. Having to give up CM (which would make me useless really in pvp, since rifles stacked with nothing sucks, lol), or give up rifles, which is how I get permission on npcs and stay in business. So I'm going to have to give up CM (which was also very affective against krayt ancients/DJK/DJM's, as well as very fun for PvE/PvP) inorder to keep a cash income.