Merchant Archive
Thread: Some reasons why vendors should stay after you drop Merchant.
LOL - do you read every third sentence? I think I've detected a learning disability
It does NOT work like all other skills in the GAME! No other skill in the game is even comparable except for CH! And those skills have been switched around and pureed so many times it's crazy! It is NOT working like it's supposed to! Just because one word, PLACE, you think it's working right? It's not like guns, or clothes.Even if you make theschematic comparison it's STILLdoesn't fly because the only way a schematic for a gun does me any good as a non-weaponsmith is if I have a factory, ie: something else to make it for me, BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE THE SKILL TO MAKE IT MYSELF.
Attikus wrote:
"A Creature Handler, once he's not a creature handler anymore can't call pets any better than a non-CH."
The training skill mods on the other hand, that allow you to train pets certain commands, have no such restrictions.... and the benefit of using that skill once is kept indefinitely. JUST LIKE OUR VENDORS>
We have no such skill in the Merchant tree that would restrict the usage or maintenance of vendors. We only have a PLACE vendor skill mod. Vendor usage(maintenance) is a universal skill granted to ALL players and the benefit gained by placing a vendor lasts indefinitely..... Just like a trained command on a creature pet.
Dont like that? Ask for it to be changed, but stop saying its not working the way it should, because as decsribed, the skill is working perfectly. Stop crying bug and exploit whene there isnt one. Ya look foolish, but more importantly you are being counterproductive and pulling attention away from our real issues.
Yeah I'm going to jump in here with both feet and point to the post on the top of this page.
Attikus? Your argument has been CLEARLY refuted in both specific and general terms, do not simply repeat your argument as if that post didn't exist and try to pick apart someone else's post that did not as clearly define why your argument is completely specious.
Simply Put:
- Having more aesthetically pleasing, varied and capable vendors to sell goods is the class defining skill of the Merchant class, full 15 of the 17 skill boxes that deal with the Merchant class deal with our ability to create, maintain and increase the visibility and 'catch' of our vendors.
- The closest parallel in the CH tree is indeed the max creature level, and the ability to tame and teach pets. NOT the ability to still use a NON-CH pet with a trained up command. Why is that the case? Because EVERY player whether they have CH abilities or not can use a NON-CH pet that has been trained by a CH. Therefore it is NOT a class defining skill. You never have to take the CH class, in order to control a non-CH pet.
- Before you say 'Well it's obvious that the ability to run those vendors isn't class defining', I point to the fact that you have to have that level of Merchant skill to get access to those vendors, therefore it .is. class defining. Secondly the equivalent to Non-CH pets, is Non-Merchant vendors those green-and-white mechanical monstrosities.
- Your argument currently can be translated as this 'SInce Non-CH players can control Non-CH pets, than Non-Merchant players should get access to Merchant vendors'.
It's a ridiculous argument, and you know it or you wouldn't have avoided replying to the post where it was pointed out in detail just how non-reflective of the situation that argument is.
Attikus wrote:
"has one shot to use that skill and that's on the pet he trained it in, and then he's done"
Wrong, wrong and wrong
Right then. Explain to me how an ex-CH, having used the ability to transfer a creature to another character can now do that with a peko-peko baby he spots in the field without re-training to that skill level.
Your analysis, while thorough, is missing the boat by several meters because you are not looking at the idividual skill mods that make up a class and how they work - instead it seems like you starting with assumptions about 'class defining abilities' and tailoring your argument to that.
Assumptions of 'class-defining abilities'? 15 out of 17 boxes in the Merchant tree have to do with vendors. *FIFTEEN* out of 17. Your great refutation is the .singular. transfer command. Please tell me that you're not seriously trying to accuse me of overplaying the importance of an aspect of a class when you're sugggesting that the two things bear equal weight. My analysis is thorough, logical and actually 'assumes' that when 15 of 17 skillboxes deal with one particular in-game system, than that system is important. It is similar to 'assuming' that the use of Rifles might be vaguely associated with the Rifleman class.
This is exactly how skill mods work. It's not a strawman, im not disorting anything... im pointing out HOW the game works. It appears to be you who is trying to bend the rules of the game, as is, to fit what you THINK classes should and should not be.
You're not distorting anything... right. Except for the fact that your example (which I admit to snipping for space) is.. unfortunately a complete strawman argument. Why?
Because the person transferring the pets could be a BOUNTY HUNTER that happened to get the pets from a CH that was retiring and held them in his datapad. Or a Dancer, or an Image Designer or a no-profession newbie that has up until the point of this fabled hunt served as nothing other than a glorified extension to another characters inventory.
ANY of those perople can trasfer a pet, just like ANY of those people can fire a Republic Blaster. Is that the benefit of a Skill Mod? NO. It's because those things are objects once created they can be traded and used. Your argument is akin to saying that someone handing over a Master Weaponsmith is taking advantage of the mods of the weaponsmith class. They're NOT because the skill mods take effect when the weapon is MADE, when the creature is TAMES or when the creature is TAUGHT.
None of these people, in your example, can place an NPC vendor, dress it up, and hand it a gun to wave around. Why? Because you have to be a merchant to do that. Therefore it is a skill that is defined by the class that uses it, and the class since *15* of 17 skillboxes deal with vendors is designed by the system it uses.
Dont like how the class is, then try to get different skill mods for your class, or change the skill mods that you currently have... but dont say they arent working when they clearly are.
Which makes you apparently the only person with a true gamevision since the devs themselves believe it's not working as it should be. Bah. I'm done with this argument.
Do you dispute this?
OH MY GOD
BRAIN DEAD
When you drop slicing do the items you've sliced suddenly become unsliced?
Attikus......you are clearly good at constructing arguments, well... better than many of the miserable excuses for reasoning i see some kids spew out all over these boards, however....I think you are missing the point
you may be correct on the "letter" of the law, but you are clearly wrong on the "spirit" of it
Just tossing in my two cents.
I agree that we need to fundamentally add more benefits to Master merchant and to get people to stay in the merchant class/make it worthwhile.
However that is a completely irrelevant issue to the current debate. The current debate is 'Why should you keep vendors after you've dropped the merchant argument' and there is no worthwhile answer. There have been several strawman arguments put in place to attempt to justify what is clearly a case of horrid coding, but those arguments are just that: strawmen.
Here's why:
The argument that Atikus has hammered into the ground is the 'transfer' command, because after all you can train up to that box, give the creature transfer and then drop back from that level of training and it still has the command and you can still transfer it and it's just like you still had the skill. Atikus has a point there. However it's a false analogy, because the true analogy would be:
'Having had the transfer command once, you get a 'transfer badge' which gives every pet you recieve the transfer command and allows you to transfer them to other players'.
Because that, in essence, is what you get once you've placed a vendor. The CH who abandons the transfer level of the class? has one shot to use that skill and that's on the pet he trained it in, and then he's done. This makes the former CH EXACTLY like any non-CH who happens to own a pet with the transfer command. The ability to transfer a pet is not the class-defining ability of the CH, it is the ability to tame and teach the pet that defines the CH.
So in order for that to be a true analogy, someone who gave up merchant should no longer be able to put items up for sale on his vendor if it's past the level of those he can control OR he has more vendors than he should be able to manage. This would then be a TRUE analogy, the Ex-Merchant could 'transfer' any items he'd already 'taught the command to', but would not be able to 'teach the transfer command' to any new items. Thus the class-defining ability to manage that level of vendor would be lost.
-------
The second strawman argument (which was part of the '5 ironclad cases where someone still recieves the benefit') was that a Master armorsmith/weaponsmith etc etc etc, once they drop the class can still run off weapons that they laid down schematics for.
This is correct, they can.
But they can't change the schematic, they can only create new items that they already created a recipe forfrom the exact same components that were used initially. A new resource appears and they can't add that in to the old schematic, they run out of a resource or component and that schematic is now useless to them. This does, by the way make them EXACTLY like any non-crafter in the game, since any player that owns a factory can run any-schematic. The ability to CREATE items is the class-defining ability of a crafter, not the ability to run them off in a factory.
Again it's a false analogy since a Merchant who gives up those levels can still place new and interesting things on all of his vendors. However it again becomes a perfect analogy if a Merchant is not allowed to put up new stock once he loses access to a vendor level or controlsa number of vendors in excess of his maximum. Thus the class-defining ability to manage that level of vendor would be lost.
----
The point has been raised before, and I'll raise it again. No other class in the game allows the unlimited continued use of the benefits of the class-defining ability of that professiononce you've dropped it.
I recently dropped scout, and had about 20 camp kits that I'd made. I could no longer place them. I dropped medic, and had at least 20 stimBs left, and can no longer use them. I dropped CH long ago, and lost access to the pets that I was able to control.
Any attempted argument that refutes these facts has, up to this point, required two things:
1) That thereader completely ignore that vendor use is UNLIMITED once the vendor is in place, allowing the class-defining ability to manage a vendor to remain intact.
2) That the reader completely ignore that the few classes where there is a lingering benefit have only a FINITE benefit, and the benefit that is extended is not the class-defining ability for the class, but is in fact an ability any other player in the game shares.
If you've got an actual argument to make to show where a class-defining ability can continue to be used once the class is dropped, feel free to fill us in, I for one would love to hear it. But if your only defense is the ability to 'Transfer' creatures that have been tamed to transfer, and the ability to run a schematic that was created by a crafter, then you're going to need to explain to me how either of those is class-defining. Because anyone can trade a 'transfer' enable pet, and anyone can stick a schematic in a factory, it's the training and the creating that's class defining. For merchants it's the ability to manage a certain kind of vendor that's special, the rest of that argument is just smoke and mirrors.