Merchant Archive
Thread: Removing full, maintenance paid abandoned vendors has to end!
DragonScout
Mon Sep 27, 2004 1:14 pm
#79
Actually it does Doc.. Mainly because why have a skill specifically geared towards finding resources -- to the point where unless you just randomly place a harvester there is no other way to tell what resources are where -- unless that skill is supposed to be required to harvest resources. By just randomly placing harvesters... or by using static mining fields you are circumventing the skill point investment that the DEVs wanted you to make in order to use harvesters.
Is this wrong? Not in my book. But it is at the same level as vendor poaching. The skills of merchant, like the skills of surveying.. are geared towards the set up of their individual utilities. Vendors for merchants, harvesters for surveying. Once you set it up.. unless you need to make changes to it, there is no real need for the skills or the skill point investment.
Is this wrong? Not in my book. But it is at the same level as vendor poaching. The skills of merchant, like the skills of surveying.. are geared towards the set up of their individual utilities. Vendors for merchants, harvesters for surveying. Once you set it up.. unless you need to make changes to it, there is no real need for the skills or the skill point investment.
DocSavag
Mon Sep 27, 2004 1:32 pm
#80
DragonScout wrote:
Actually it does Doc.. Mainly because why have a skill specifically geared towards finding resources -- to the point where unless you just randomly place a harvester there is no other way to tell what resources are where -- unless that skill is supposed to be required to harvest resources. By just randomly placing harvesters... or by using static mining fields you are circumventing the skill point investment that the DEVs wanted you to make in order to use harvesters.
Is this wrong? Not in my book. But it is at the same level as vendor poaching. The skills of merchant, like the skills of surveying.. are geared towards the set up of their individual utilities. Vendors for merchants, harvesters for surveying. Once you set it up.. unless you need to make changes to it, there is no real need for the skills or the skill point investment.
The problem is that you make a leap of assumption. Finding resources is a skil. Placing a harvester isn't. There can be no doubt that the devs knew you would be able to just drop one and harvest whatever is available. But you can't use that method to get the best resources in the largest quantities becuse it is terribly inefficient to do that. Yes you can make a fine living out of harvesting massive quantities out of whatever is available in a spot but that isn't the same thing as using your survey sklils to find specific resources.
There is a payout for using Survey or having someone with survey. It is a valid business enterprise for an Artisan to charge for waypoints for high value resource spawns. That is simply using their skils to provide a service to other players. There is nothing wrong with that and equating it with using a skill perk from Merchant without retaining the skill is a stretch.
rexan
Mon Sep 27, 2004 1:50 pm
#81
DragonScout wrote:
Looks like you are arguing for vendor poaching now.
Do you really think it was the intention of the DEVs originally that anyone could just throw down a harvester and completely remove the need for the surveying skill? (We aren't even referring to the mining profession that never made it into the game.) And if they want you to have skill points invested in surveying to find resources.. then by using static mining fields or by just plopping down a harvester any old place... it is just as wrong as vendor poaching. Oh, but wait.. that can't be right.. then you would be an evil exploiter. Because you are exploiting the game design that allows you to get away with not having skillpoints invested surveying skills.
The depth of your illogic is staggering.
Have you ever tried to survey for high concentrations of a specific resource? If you have, you will know that you can do it both with novice artisan and survey 4. Its a heck of a lot easier to do it with survey 4. But does that mean that someone who only uses novice artisan is exploiting? Harvesters are not certed. If a harvester is down, it stays down, and can onlyharvest whatever randomly appears under it. This is not an exploit of the artisan profession.
DocSavag
Mon Sep 27, 2004 1:59 pm
#82
rexan wrote:
DragonScout wrote:
Looks like you are arguing for vendor poaching now.
Do you really think it was the intention of the DEVs originally that anyone could just throw down a harvester and completely remove the need for the surveying skill? (We aren't even referring to the mining profession that never made it into the game.) And if they want you to have skill points invested in surveying to find resources.. then by using static mining fields or by just plopping down a harvester any old place... it is just as wrong as vendor poaching. Oh, but wait.. that can't be right.. then you would be an evil exploiter. Because you are exploiting the game design that allows you to get away with not having skillpoints invested surveying skills.The depth of your illogic is staggering.
Have you ever tried to survey for high concentrations of a specific resource? If you have, you will know that you can do it both with novice artisan and survey 4. Its a heck of a lot easier to do it with survey 4. But does that mean that someone who only uses novice artisan is exploiting? Harvesters are not certed. If a harvester is down, it stays down, and can onlyharvest whatever randomly appears under it. This is not an exploit of the artisan profession.
Exactly..and while some artisans want harvesters cert'd to their profession it hasn't happened yet. If it does and you find away around it then that I would agree would be an exploit. Vendors on the other hand were cert'd from the start. The code simply didn't enforce it very well.
Indene
Mon Sep 27, 2004 3:25 pm
#83
DragonScout wrote:
Looks like you are arguing for vendor poaching now.
Do you really think it was the intention of the DEVs originally that anyone could just throw down a harvester and completely remove the need for the surveying skill? (We aren't even referring to the mining profession that never made it into the game.) And if they want you to have skill points invested in surveying to find resources.. then by using static mining fields or by just plopping down a harvester any old place... it is just as wrong as vendor poaching. Oh, but wait.. that can't be right.. then you would be an evil exploiter. Because you are exploiting the game design that allows you to get away with not having skillpoints invested surveying skills.
The point and possibly intent of survey skill is the same as RL. By being a surveyor I can rather quicly and with minimal expense find the "hotspots" for a resource. Now I can sell my services as a 'surveyor' to *ALL* other players because any of them can then place and use harvesters. If you get this ability nerfed you seriousely damage my survey business as only those who can survey can harvest so why would they hire me? You might also be damaging the Architects business as fewer people would want to buy harvesters as only surveyors could use them. So in answer to your question yes I *DO* think the DEVs indend anyone to throw down a harvester. It does not remove the need for survey skill (unless they made it free to place and then destroy the harvester and reclaim the deed) and even then survey with the survey tool would be faster.
-Indene- (Master of the survey tree of artisan)
Indene
Mon Sep 27, 2004 3:36 pm
#84
Malitevv wrote:i might take you seriously dingo if every other sentence wasn't an ad hominem attack. with that sort of reasoning you basically invalidate your own points, IMO. I will step out now, this side argument is off topic anyway.Message Edited by Malitevv on 09-25-2004 01:21 AM
The beauty of ad hominem attacks is that the moment the opponent uses them on you, you can relax as you know
you have won the debate.
-Indene-
Indene
Mon Sep 27, 2004 3:46 pm
#85
DingoBoi wrote:
DragonScout wrote:
The cool thing about this.. is that I do not have to point to my 'proof'.. because as I stated.. my argument is that they 'never' said this change was to prevent poaching. So if I am saying that they never said that.. kinda hard to find a post never saying it. you still with me? They CLEARLY and DISTINCTLY stated that people were never to keep the benefits of the skill after dropping it. I'll say this slowly since I'm talking to you. IS.... THAT..... CLEAR..... ENOUGH..... FOR ...... YOU?
>
Well actually the merchant vendor behavior prior to Pub 10 fit exactly what dingoboi was saying before he started yelling (All caps) The merchant skill to Create and to Place a vendor would be lost when you dropped merchant. Note there is nothing in the skill that says "use" a vendor. Sure enough after dropping merchant you could no longer create nor place a vendor. So no poching *ever* occured and no *"ecploit"* ever occured before patch 10. Now I happen to have read the skill box after patch 10 as well as before and it still says create and/or place. Nothing about using. So until someone can point to a DEV thread, statement, etc to the contrarry I must side with DragonScout and presume the vendor chages were for database problems (which the Devs did mention in several posts. Use search "database" to find.) I do wish the database could have also been helped by increasing resource container max and by having vendors have 1 entry for resource and 1 entry for cpu so the customer could select the quanity. That would have helped the database but would require a non trivial change to the code for vendors.
-Indene-
Indene
Mon Sep 27, 2004 3:58 pm
#86
GraySeven wrote:Sorry DragonScout, but that isn't true. Meat and other organics are items. You don't need a special skill to have them, just as I don't need to be a Jedi to loot a Crystal.Vendors are directly dependant on skills. If you don't have the skill, you can't get a vendor. Once you have the skill, you can have the vendor. If you drop the skill, you loose the vendor, just as a Master Rifleman would lose Strafe Shot 2 if he dropped the Master box. He's no longer a Master, hence he can't use the Special.The Vendor issue is past, and no amount of arguing is going to change things. If you don't have the pre-req skill, you can't have what that skill allows. The vendor skill isn't about placing them, its about having them.
Vendors are items. You can *ONLY* get them by being a merchant. Once you have them you *MUST* be a merchant to place them. Once placed and activated *NO OTHER SKILL* is needed for basic operation. However to place them on the global map, dress them pretty, make them speak does require specific merchant skill. Once dressed or trained they (because they are items) get to be. You can not change them if you drop merchant skill but they continue to exist just as other items in the game do. Houses for instance. A vendor is an item. strafe shot 2 is a skill. Changing the vendors planetary map entry or what the vendor says is a skill. Using one to sell or store things is(before pub 10) not a skill.
-Indene-
Indene
Mon Sep 27, 2004 4:02 pm
#87
DragonScout wrote:
You do have to have special skills to GET those things though. You have to have combat skills to GET loot.. you have to have scouting skills to GET meat. Those skills are what the profession gives you to actively USE. Just like the merchant profession gives you skills to PLACE vendors and to PLACE items up for sale.
A vendor isn't directly dependent on merchant at all. SETTING UP a vendor is. There is a difference.
And there is a problem with trying to compare strafe shot 2 and a vendor.. That problem lies in the fact that the vendor itself is not comparable to strafe shot. The vendor is more comparable to a T21. The skill strafe shot is comparable to the ability to PLACE a vendor or to PLACE an item up for sale. And when you drop merchant, you lose those abilities... Just like if you drop rifleman, you lose strafe shot. But that doesn't mean the vendor should just stop working or disappear. Just like when you drop rifleman, your rifles don't disappear.
And it really isn't a dead issue since you can still vendor poach.
Minor nit. The skill to get loot is NOT a combat skill. The skill to get meat is. If I kill a creature then drop all scout skills I could *NOT* harvest any meat from that kill. (well actually I have not tried it but I would expect to fail
) If I kill an NPC and drop all combat skills I would expect to be able to loot the NPC of credits and crystals or whatever.-Indene-
Indene
Mon Sep 27, 2004 4:21 pm
#88
lisasdarren wrote:To many of you to respond to to do each post so i will jsut stick them all in one...Dragonscout - do you understand the difference between right and wrong? word play and semantics can't change the underlying essence of the fact that doing something that clearly wasn't intended is wrong.I am not trying to make people play 'my way' or am i having a go about people not playing 'my way' If you do something that is clearly not intended (if you can't see how poaching vendors falls into this category then i feel sorry for you) then you are cheating the system.
That you have the *opinion* that something is wrong and that doing that something is cheating does not make it a fact. No word play or lack thereof will change this. On the subject of intent since that is the beginning of your point, How do you define or determine the 'intent' of the DEVs? I do remember hearing of a post where the DEVs were said to have stated that the vendors were not opperating as intended but I do not know where that post is nor if it is 'real'. I do know that prior to PUB-10 the statements INGAME in the text for the skills for merchants (starting at business 3) made it clear that the skill involved "creating and placing vendors". Once placed there was no INGAME indication that you could not use the vendor after dropping the skill. Since few of us can read minds (intent) even at close range we naturally assumed that the vendors were operating normally. There was no special mechanic that blocked me adding things to the vendor (PUB 10 changed that) There was no fancy timeing thing to do to cause the vendor to take the item even though it was not supposed to. So you have the opinion that the intent prior to Pub 10 was different than what we discovered and what the INGAME text clearly stated. You are welcome to that opionion but please refrain from telling others that they are cheating. You can have that opinion of course but it is neither nice nor appropreate to accuse others of such things on opinions with so little substance. (In my opinion of course
)-Indene-
Indene
Mon Sep 27, 2004 4:28 pm
#89
EnigmaBSc wrote:
....From one of Thunderhearts 19 answers posts:
It was never intended for players to be able to keep and manage vendors after surrendering the Management skill boxes used to acquire them. This is scheduled to be fixed in a future publish and we want to upgrade vendors also, but it’s a bit early to start talking about that.
Thank you, Thank you now I have a pointer to that (and even got to read it
-Indene-
Indene
Mon Sep 27, 2004 4:36 pm
#90
phrenq wrote:
How can you possibly deny that it was en exploit? EnigmaBSc made it very clear, but maybe there were too many words for you. I'll sum it up: TH says it "poaching" was not intended to be possible. The community standards say things that give you an unintended benefit are exploits.
Maybe you're saying TH was lying? Or just misinformed? (Hmm.. Actually, I might be able to buy that.)
So tell me. Once the Combat Revamp is done will every one that used the current state be guilty in your mind of "exploiting"? The DEVs have said quite clearly and in quite a few forums that several of the professions are out of balance and NOT WORKING as intended. Does that mean that all those players that play those professions are doing something wrong?
-Indene-
Indene
Mon Sep 27, 2004 4:39 pm
#91
phrenq wrote:
DocSavag wrote:
This whole exploit discussion is off topic..and moot. That train has left the station.
As to the concerns about the 100 day change. This doesn't change the empty vendor code so Mall owners still only have to wait 28 days for their deadbeat vendors to vanish.
Bah. You're right of course, sorry for drawing it out.
The reason I continue to discuss the "exploit" is because I believe that we mis-use the word "exploit" and way too often. Calling things exploits just because they are logical but un-intended things for instance.
-Indene-