Merchant Archive
Thread: can this be addressed w/o being flamed
theonebountyhunter
Tue Jun 01, 2004 6:39 am
#53
I'm guessing you have never been an armorsmith. I've said this before, I don't have a grand scale business. it does well for what i do. but i like to keep 500k plus of certain resources on hand. whould u like to know why... b/c in the as business and i know in other proffesions also. there are resoruces that dont' spawn for months. and then there are somethat spawn every other week but don't ever have the quality worth harvesting for even longer. that is why we harvests as much as we can.
I harvest as much as i can so that way i'm not paying 10cpu+ i price my armor inexpensive and like to keep it that way. if i can keep the cost of resoruces down then i can afford to buy wooly hide 
lisasdarren
Tue Jun 01, 2004 6:53 am
#54
theonebountyhunter wrote:
I'm guessing you have never been an armorsmith. I've said this before, I don't have a grand scale business. it does well for what i do. but i like to keep 500k plus of certain resources on hand. whould u like to know why... b/c in the as business and i know in other proffesions also. there are resoruces that dont' spawn for months. and then there are somethat spawn every other week but don't ever have the quality worth harvesting for even longer. that is why we harvests as much as we can.
I harvest as much as i can so that way i'm not paying 10cpu+ i price my armor inexpensive and like to keep it that way. if i can keep the cost of resoruces down then i can afford to buy wooly hide
Well if you want to keep good resources then fine, but if I am reading the Devs intentions correctly, you can only keep 75 stacks per lot used for housing... That allows you to keep quite a few stacks of the good stuff, but not loads.
The other thing to consider is that maybe you're not supposed to be able to always make the best possible armour and that the Devs intended for those suits made with only top notch materials to be the exception appearing once in a blue moon at the time that many great AS spawns coincided?
The Devs said they never expected composite to get that good, maybe this is why, maybe they always expected half the resources going into it to be low quality.
I am only looking at things here from the POV of how I see the Devs original intentions for the game, I am well aware that the way AS, WS and other crafters run their operations these days they have storage issues. I am saying you are not playing as the Devs intended and that is probably why you have storage issues, the Devs obviously don't want people storing loads of stuff otherwise they would happily change stack sizes and crate sizes to save room in their database.
theonebountyhunter
Tue Jun 01, 2004 8:45 am
#55
we may not be doing as the dev's had intended, but we are just playing the hand we were dealt. even when I use my 8 lots plus a friend 10. i can pull over a mil per shift. thats not even close to what others pull with static harvesters or guys like the eclipse power guy.
if they didn't plan on composite being like it was then maybe they should do something about the rest of the armors. with harvesters pulling at 13-14. what am i supposed to do be a fool and drop some nice personals down on it. and make 10 sets a week??
there are more customers out there then most crafters can keep up w/. sure if i wanted to devote 100% of my playing time to crafting i could. but i dont.
as a smuggler how many crates of spice to you make at a time??? considering stats don't matter for your spice and they need far less resources then other products i can see how u don't have a storage problem
Balkstar
Tue Jun 01, 2004 9:05 am
#56
DragonScout wrote:
It isn't cheating, and until you show a post from a DEV saying it is exploiting the vendor system, stop bringing it up. The vendor system is working as intended when it comes to storage. The items can still be bought, so there is absolutely nothing to back up your claims of an exploit. You keep crying about this, yet where is your proof?
Fact is that once the item goes out on the market with a price, no matter how outragous the price, the vendor is being used for sales. With no skill points invested in Buisness 3, this is a no-no, by SOE's own admission. The selers intention may be to hold item indefinetly, but the actual manifestation in the game shows an intention to sell.
As it appears, theonebountyhunter appears to be in the right, assuming, of course he laid just a Coke Machine. It may be not what SOE would like to see in their databases, but they can't claim exploitation. Had he lost the skillpoints, its an exploit.
DocSavag
Tue Jun 01, 2004 11:51 am
#57
DingoBoi wrote:
Just for reference, my personal single harvest cycle 'best' was harvesting 18 million units of resources worth over 54 million credits. Now, all mine were placed on vendors immediately since I don't have to do anything with it but sell it at that point, but what's a crafter to do? They need to store these till they can be processed and turned into goods. Even working 24/7 on turning raw materials into goods would take weeks. So they are 'punished' for trying to run a good business.
theonebountyhunter wrote:
we may not be doing as the dev's had intended, but we are just playing the hand we were dealt. even when I use my 8 lots plus a friend 10. i can pull over a mil per shift. thats not even close to what others pull with static harvesters or guys like the eclipse power guy.
The lack of unlimited storage is not a punishment it is a reality of every business even in real life.
DingoBoi
Tue Jun 01, 2004 2:09 pm
#58
true, but real companies can purchase more storage if they have the cash to do so 
There is a big difference between reasonable storage and unllimited storage. I'd like to see reasonable storage for the crafter. Tis such a shame they can't even decorate their houses becuase of needing the space for resources.
p4Samwise
Tue Jun 01, 2004 3:15 pm
#59
Using vendors for storage is just as much of an "exploit" regardless of whether you're "poaching" the vendors or maintaining them "legally".
Is it an exploit at all? I'd say yes, because the system was designed to give each player a finite amount of storage space, and vendors allow an infinite amount of storage.
Then again, the people at the top of the economy do so much lot-swapping that they could probably handle all their storage needs even without the vendors, and the lot-swappers also cause harm to the economy by running hundreds of harvesters. Compared to that, vendor storage is small potatoes. Of course, there are no plans to stop the lot-swappers, so the devs will simply cut down vendor storage and cross their fingers hoping that it'll have a noticeable impact.
So many problems, so few fixes...
DragonScout
Tue Jun 01, 2004 4:52 pm
#60
I completely disagree with vendors being used as storage being an exploit. The item is still for sale. If there was a way to store items on a vendor and yet not be for sale, and not be deleted after 7 days, then yes, it would be an exploit. But as it is now, vendors are working as intended -- assuming of course you have the necessary skill points invested.
And, like I have said elsewhere, there is no possible way they could ever prevent them from being used as storage. Not without nerfing vendors or removing them completely. And by nerfing them, I don't mean item limits, because that doesn't really matter, I mean lowering the pricing caps, which would take away a lot of their effectiveness because then it makes them more like the bazaar which has a hard cap of 6k. There is absolutely no way a computer can tell if you are pricing it for the market, or pricing it for storage, especially in a player driven economy where some days an item can go for 2 credits, and the next 10 million.
And, like I have said elsewhere, there is no possible way they could ever prevent them from being used as storage. Not without nerfing vendors or removing them completely. And by nerfing them, I don't mean item limits, because that doesn't really matter, I mean lowering the pricing caps, which would take away a lot of their effectiveness because then it makes them more like the bazaar which has a hard cap of 6k. There is absolutely no way a computer can tell if you are pricing it for the market, or pricing it for storage, especially in a player driven economy where some days an item can go for 2 credits, and the next 10 million.
p4Samwise
Tue Jun 01, 2004 6:47 pm
#61
Sure there is. Have items on a vendor count against the building's storage capacity. There would then be no advantage to putting items on the vendor vs. just using the house for storage. 
Of course, that opens up a host of other problems, sincethey'd have to really crank up the limits on house storage to avoid that being a major vendor nerf.
DragonScout
Tue Jun 01, 2004 7:03 pm
#62
lol. that wouldn't help anything. That would then have every merchant in the game complaining in a second. I mean, what, at the most that would let a vendor hold 250 items? and that is if you just have one vendor in a large house? It would destroy malls and most merchants.
I think giving more lots and more items per house would be awesome abilities for merchants and could easily be coded so that a merchant would only keep that bonus if they had skill points invested. But, I doubt they will raise the item limits on houses since they don't seem to want to increase storage space. And you could bet if they did it as a bonus for merchants, every crafter in the game would either be merchant or have an alt as merchant just for the storage space.
I think giving more lots and more items per house would be awesome abilities for merchants and could easily be coded so that a merchant would only keep that bonus if they had skill points invested. But, I doubt they will raise the item limits on houses since they don't seem to want to increase storage space. And you could bet if they did it as a bonus for merchants, every crafter in the game would either be merchant or have an alt as merchant just for the storage space.
Songe
Tue Jun 01, 2004 7:09 pm
#63
They actually did that once... People screamed so much that they changed it, that was a terrible idea IMO.
lisasdarren
Wed Jun 02, 2004 1:54 am
#64
DingoBoi wrote:
true, but real companies can purchase more storage if they have the cash to do so
There is a big difference between reasonable storage and unllimited storage. I'd like to see reasonable storage for the crafter. Tis such a shame they can't even decorate their houses becuase of needing the space for resources.
Very true, and if this was a business simulation then your point would be very valid, however it is a game. In this game the "competition" for these crafters, who are trying to develop a large business and push their competitors out of business, are peoplewanting to "have fun" as a crafter making and selling their goods.
If a few dedicated, business minded people are able to produce enough high quality goods at an affordable price (a legitimate business practice i accept) to cover 70% of the market then it removes the fun from the more casual crafter who just wants to produce a few hundred items a week and sell them at a reasonable profit.
This is a game and it needs to be fun for all... If for a minority to have fun (run a billion credit business, dominate the market) it means that a majority loses out on fun then i'm afraid the fun of the minority has to be secondary.
p4Samwise
Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:24 pm
#65
p4Samwise wrote:
they'd have to really crank up the limits on house storage
QFE