Merchant Archive
Thread: Merchant Item Limits Focus Thread: Please try to be constructive and rational (Pt 2)
lmicheles
Tue Aug 10, 2004 2:14 pm
#66
Doc - I'm just interested right now in finding out if there's been ANY feedback on what we've been discussing by the Devs. If so, and IF it's public - could you post the link here? Thanks.
VancouverBoy
Tue Aug 10, 2004 2:19 pm
#67
I've just finished reading through all of the posts (in this thread anyway) and there are some excellent ideas being floated with really sensible limits proposed. Some are probably a bit extreme, but hey if we don't push hard enough we won't get anything will we?
But, as some have already pointed out, the community is unlikely to be able to provide much more constructive input into this problem than it already has. Not unless we know what problem we are trying to solve anyway. We are all speculating on what the problems might be and trying to provide solutions based on that.
The only facts I see, is that the implementation on Test Center is totally unrealistic based on the way everyone plays the game today. Not just Power Merchants or those that are taking advantage of the holes in the current design, but also the average players like myself who are just trying to turn a few credits.
If the the problem is DB size, it has already been pointed out that the DB shouldn't be unmanageable with a reasonable cap in place, assuming you've cleaned up all dead accounts and orphaned data. I'm sure there is more to it than this, but without knowledge of your architecture you can't expect us to solve this problem for you. That's why you guys get paid the big bucks.
If the problem is about gameplay, then you've heard what the community wants and feels they need to be able to play the game the way it was designed, and for the most part it seems more thanreasonable too.
You had to know the limits placed on Test Centerwould be totally rejected by your customers. So we can only assume you were floating the idea to prepare us forsome happy medium.
So let's hear it, so we can all go back to our game and start grinding Merchant XP.
Cheers,
Vancouver Boy.
Vancouver Boy.
Cafa
Tue Aug 10, 2004 2:20 pm
#68
Let me start by saying, the skills provided for merchant boxes alone have long been without soul or heart. (THIS IS NOT A FLAME, IT IS AN OBSERVATION) It is blatantly obvious that whoever is trying to implement these changes neither plays the game as a full-time crafter, nor places value upon our year long+ efforts to establish.
Honestly I ask you how you can expect a playerbase to continue to deal with these issues. Gameplay is almost non-existant for anyone that is a crafter with a vendor right now. We, as a group, are stunned beyond belief that you are going to remove thesingle most important ability of our profession, volume sales.
Volume sales is the foundation of the merchant profession. Whatever the underlying reasoning is doesn't matter. You are removing volume sales, plain and simple.
Regurgitating a bit:
I'd really like to know why? I cannot believe it's a database issue, since you obviously keep adding things to the database constantly on a LARGE scale, e.g., holocrons, paintings, special loot items, etc.
But if you're just looking for numbers, the only thing I'd even suggest is that you change the limits to 100 per LEVEL of vendors available across the entire progression.
This would be:
Business 3: 1 vendor - 100 items the vendor
Novice Merchant : 2 vendors - Max of 200 items on each vendor. Total stockable items = 400
Management 1: 3 vendors - Max of 300 items on each vendor. Total stockable items = 900
Management 2: 4 vendors - Max of 400 items on each vendor. Total stockable items = 1600
Management 3: 5 vendors - Max of 500 items on each vendor. Total stockable items = 2500
Management 4: 6 vendors - Max of 600 items on each vendor. Total stockable items = 3600
Master Merchant: 7 vendors - Max of 700 items on each vendor. Total stockable items = 4900
These I see as a reasonable compromise. Not less than this ---> THIS.
In addition, 1000K resource stacks and 100 count REstackable crates would go a LONG way to disuade people from using vendors as storage.
Fivo Asia
DocSavag
Tue Aug 10, 2004 2:43 pm
#70
lmicheles wrote:Doc - I'm just interested right now in finding out if there's been ANY feedback on what we've been discussing by the Devs. If so, and IF it's public - could you post the link here? Thanks.
The only public comment I am aware of is from TH:
"On one hand, merchants need to be the vendor wranglers. There is no getting around tying vendor limitations to Artisan/Business skills and Merchant skills. On the other hand, I've been speaking with the team on the item number restrictions and I'm pretty sure we'll be able to get those limits raised to a suitable level."
It can be found here:
http://forums.station.sony.com/swg/board/message?board.id=Developers&message.id=49121
polymorphic1
Tue Aug 10, 2004 3:13 pm
#71
I would like you to convey one thing to the dev team.
They should have thought of this 1 year ago. It is a sign of poor program management to have something like this changed so drastically after being a part of the system for so long.
It's like your cell phone service halving your minutes halfway through your contract because "it's just not a realistic thing to give you".
I'm not arguing that a limit should not exist. I would, however, argue that CRITICAL issues such as this should be discussed MUCH EARLIER than they are.
Can't wait to see what is changed a year after JTL comes out. Probably only the important things....
microunityexclusive
Tue Aug 10, 2004 3:28 pm
#72
I don't mind limits so long as they keep them reasonable some thing around 800-1000 sounds good to me. I also like the idea of breaking up the monopolies >:biggrin. Hmm I am not a crafter but plan on becoming one and was wondering if 800-1000 would be a good ranged to keep business going.
VarnaxDespin
Tue Aug 10, 2004 3:31 pm
#73
polymorphic1 wrote:
It's like your cell phone service halving your minutes halfway through your contract because "it's just not a realistic thing to give you".
hehe, I think your being too generous 
... IMO its more like themchanging your unlimited nighttime and weekend minutesto 50 or 100 for the entire week.... a fairly large change 
... IMO its more like themchanging your unlimited nighttime and weekend minutesto 50 or 100 for the entire week.... a fairly large change
BULLROACH
Tue Aug 10, 2004 3:33 pm
#74
MrElmar wrote:
>> You need to tell us WHY this must be done.
as a developer myself (not at soe so spare me the flames) comments like this crack me up ... get over yourselves ... you don't own any part of this game or have any rights owed to you. the only right you are i have is when you or i choose to log in and play it (assuming the bill to play is paid).
You are so true in your comments. No subscriber has “any” rights to “anything” in this game. Nothing, nada, and zero is what you have when it comes to the deciding of what happens to this game. Your only hope is the influences you have with your spending dollars that you can withhold or your voice, which you can speak to others about this situation.
I was sitting around thinking and I started to daydream. About what was going on…………
SOE has spent millions of dollars in licensing fees to get the “rights” to this game to make hopefully tens of millions more over an extremely long period of time. They have done their research and understand the dynamics of online gaming psychology in relationship to the consumer and the product. They feel they have made a marketing coup due the license they have obtained. Star Wars!! It has a loyal following across racial, economic, age, and social barriers. It will not have any story or content barriers due to an already deep library that extends back over twenty years in film, radio, television, books, comics, and games. It is a lore that is constantly being discovered and rediscovered by millions of people worldwide and a potential cash cow that will have a long….long run before the milk goes dry.
Because of this understanding they are making a calculated guess that any unpopular changes in the product will be shrugged off and you will keep your accounts. They may have a “real” need to do some data wrangling but see this as an opportune time to see how strong their “Marketing model” is compared to reality. If it fails then they make the needed adjustments and by word of mouth and media use they will gain you back. This data collected will be used in revenue forecasts to assist those responsible for SOE’s division to make financial decisions regarding budgets, staffing, benefits, IT, and all of the normal expenses that are associated with running a business. The number crunchers want to poke the nest a bit. They want to see how strong your relationships to the content, environment, and community is. They feel that better to test now when the game is strong in numbers and revenue than when at a time that might be weaker. It will be a benchmark to point to in the future.
Few if any business have the opportunity to actually perform such data rich “tests” as this. Not only will it provide models for customer types and relationships it will provide real tangible data that can be presented at board meetings and in stock holder reports. Real concrete data on spending behavior of real people is more valuable than you could ever understand. I use it to target my customer precisely without waste. The key here is word waste. I don’t want to waste my time, money, and labor force running around trying to find my customer. I want to know who, what, when, where, and why the customer “buys” so I can focus on “packaging” my product for the easy buy.
SOE has already done that. They did all that before purchasing the license to create SWG. What they do not know is how strongly they have packaged the service. As I said before there may be a real data management issue at the kernel of this but I see it as a wonderful time to test the limits of how easy it is for you to buy this product. From all of the strong reactions that I see I think my counterparts over at SOE have a good idea of what type of product they have on their hands. /tip hat
I would have continued my daydream but some one dropped a thirty-page product analysis report on my desk and asked me to work some miracles. Back to RL!
Message Edited by BULLROACH on 08-10-2004 07:25 PM
Targetam
Tue Aug 10, 2004 4:08 pm
#75
I posted in the previous thread, but an additional concern came to me this afternoon - Time Zone differences.
With the vendor limits that are proposed, hunting characters will find themselves in an interesting bind when an auction they are running is won by someone who plays in a different time zone. The most common solution used, today, is to for the winner to have a vendor placed, somewhere, where the auction item can be dropped off. The transaction is secure and reliable - the seller gets the credits, the buyer gets the item.
Take away the drop-off vendors for players, and suddenly they have to rely on third-parties to complete cross-time-zone trades.
Fraud problemsmay increase as a result of this no "non-merchant gets a vendor" change.
I cannot see any good coming of this. Either the CSRs will have a higher workload investigating things (bad for SoE), or they will start telling us that trusting another player to handle the sale is "at our own risk" (bad for us).
Implementing a buy-only vendor ("drop-off droid") to replace this functionality might soften the blow for most hunters.
Just a thought.
Malichai
Tue Aug 10, 2004 4:11 pm
#76
I hate to say this.. but soe doesn't give a crap about your wants or needs. It's all about the money.. we can cry for weeks and they won't do anything but what they want to do. This merchant vendor cap is just another slam to this profession, when you add the recent macrogarbage to it. its double jepordy. "Let us know how you feel.." thats what they asked about the macro thing.. Well we griped over 1500 posts (that was one thread, there were 2) on the macro thing and were told sorry about your luck.. basically they gave us the opportunity to voice our concerns and then did absolutley nothing.
so none of this is going to make any difference.. none.. one by one they have taken the powerful professions and nurfed them beyond recognition.. and yes we are powerful.. we control the economy.
I propose this... its time to form a picket line and go on STRIKE!
sound drastic.. well it is.. the good stuff made at master levels are what people want, especially the hard core players.. what will happen when all they can find is bone armor and wrinkly pants..
there will be an uproar like none ever heard before. Most of the masters can stand to "enjoy" the game with out the grind for a little bit, we have enough money.
think about it... time to sell what you have and stop for a bit on the crafting... lets see what happens.
just a thought
Message Edited by Malichai on 08-10-2004 07:18 PM
Handsnake
Tue Aug 10, 2004 4:16 pm
#77
Doc,
Dumping has already started on every server I've been on. Furthermore, every trade forum has vendors advertising dump sales due to this upcoming nerf. The uncertainty and the time needed to clear out excess stock in anticipation has started the economic avalanche already.
They've managed to start the depression (deflation and sell off of inventory below cost) early just with the public comments on this vendor item nerf.
Tell them that they've messed up.
Also tell them that a significant number of merchants say that any vendor item limit is unacceptable in any way, especially now after they've completely fouled this up.
I've cancelled one of my accounts and will becancelling mymain crafter account - no matter what is decided as to the final item number will be in live. I'm not alone.
Nebo_Sabot
Tue Aug 10, 2004 4:26 pm
#78
I Think that this propose change in merchant will greatly disrupt the games "living" economy... I have seen way to much abuse of sellling stuff on bazzar, I guess that why most of the stuff still stays there. Merchants on average, from what I have seen, keep well stocked vendors at reasonable prices. Then there are those that use the pay 1cr to enter a building and have rows of empty vendors to get their xp. That is what should be dealt with. Not the stocked working merchants of the game. As well with this propose changes, PA cities that use their merchants as the economy for the cities as well. There will be lots of those falling and fading away. From what Reading .. Master merchantts should have a higher cap limit than the proposed. That is my two scents worth on this. I would like to see everythign thrive, not die and wither away.