Merchant Archive
Thread: Some reasons why vendors should stay after you drop Merchant.
The question is- Is this the way vendors were intended to work? The answer is, we don't know. Although the devs have weighed in saying they don't think people should keep the benefits of a class after dropping it, they have not (to my knowledge) weighed in on whether or not the "benefit" is placement or not.
There are good arguments on both sides of this issue. However, there appear to be a number of folks who are so bent out of shape that someone could actually think the current situation is not an exploit that they're becoming irrational.
Me, I'm with Attikus on this one. When it comes right down to where rubber meets road, the skill is working precisely as described. Whether this is a "good" thing or not is another question entirely, and one that should be discussed- reasonably. I'm an RTFM kind of guy, and this feature, as far as I'm concerned is working as documented.
Bottom line
We all _know_ how is _supposed_ and _intended_ to work, but some of us are hiding behind (often very convincing) arguments that are either supposed to make them feel better about being an exploiter, or a vain attempt to kill off the inevitable nerf
We all _know_ the nerf is coming, maybe not before 'droid invasion' or 'imperial crackdown' but its coming and the devs have asked Doc to try ask how we feel this would be best implimented
The time for debating this is well past (to be fair there never really was a time) you'd all be better off putting your energy into propsing ways so that you dont just automatically lose everything when the nerf bat swings
Attikus wrote:
"Now honestly, you REALLY think that because they said "place" instead of "maintain" or whathaveyou that they INTENTIONALLY wanted this? Really?"
That is not the point at all.... I have no clue what they intentionally wanted. All I have been arguing since page one is that the skill, as described, works perfectly and it works exactly the way all skills for all other proffesions work.
Attikus, if you truly dont know what the devs intended (or didnt intend) then you havent been paying attention. So I will quote once again from the dev's response to the top 5 merchant issues ... this time, with 'feeling':
5. Currently it is possible to give up practically all of your merchant
skills without having to give up the vendors that you received as a benefit
of those skills.
We would like to see some suggested changes that would address this
situation. We agree in principle that Merchant Skills should not be
surrendered without the loss of the benefits of those skills.
If you are still unable to comprehend this, allow me to break it down into an easy to read, bite size format for those suffering from the inability to concentrate for longer than a sitcom progresses before the next commercial.
A. They view this issue as a problem. If they didnt, they wouldnt be seeking changes.
B. They agree, in principle, that merchants skills shouldnt be surrendered without the loss of benefits of those skills. Clearly one of the benefits of those skills is not the so called 'placement' of vendors, butthe ability to have them in the first place. If having them were not a benefit, but every player's right, then the tutorial would have some sort of built in scenario that in essence gave all new players vendors ... similar to the way that noone walks out of the tutorial without a cdef weapon.
When the dev's stop asking for solutions to this, then we might debate at that point that the skill is working as intended. Since they ARE asking for solutions, we can infer that they consider this issue a problem, and hence, NOT WHAT THEY INTENDED. Even they appreciate the old saying: 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it"
Attikus wrote:
When you untrain a skill, you simply lose the ability to do that skill again... you do not lose what you have already done with it.
Do you dispute this?
I dispute the relevance of this because you're arguing apples and oranges.
With every other skill in the game, when you drop that skillyou revert to a state in which you bear the same possibilities, rights, and powers as someone who never had that skill. Drop CH, and you can only use the commands that a qualified CH put on the pet just like someone who was never a CH can do, dropa craft skilland you can only use/trade/sell/destroy crafted items or create one from a crafter-created schematic just like someone who was never a crafter can do.
Drop Merchant, and you can still sell items on6 custom created NPC vendors just like someone who.... oh wait, they can't do that can they?
Dropping a skillset should lose the benefits of that skillset. That is the case with EVERY other skillset in the game except merchant. Vendors are not a crafted item, or a tamed creature, vendors are access to a game SYSTEM that is only supposed to be accessible to non-merchants through the bazaar or robo-terminals.
The closest parallel is actually in crafting. If you drop artisan, you can still carry around all the survey tools that you created while you were an artisan, but you can't gain access to the survey system, you can still carry around your crafting tools... but you can't gain access to the crafting system. You can still have a personal crafting station in your house... but you can't experiment with it. Just like vendors those are objects that allow access to another in-game system. Unlike vendors the benefits of those objects disappear once you lose the relevant crafting class.
JimerLins wrote: Attikus, while a bit strident at points, is absolutely correct in that the skill is working as described. His arguments are cogent (his flames notwithstanding), his reasoning sound, and examples correct.
A few things occured to me last night which were the only things that brought me back to this thread, in essence these are more ways in which the argument that it's 'just like other skillmods' completely falls apart under close inspection. Since CH keeps getting brought up as the poster child of this argument, we'll use CH as the example in this case as well.
Master CH
May tame/train pets. May hold an additional number of pets in his datapad. May control a larger number of pets at the same time. May control higher CLs of pets. May use a CH trained pet.
Former CH
May NOT tame/train pets. May hold 2 pets in his datapad. May control 1 pet at a time. May controlCL 10 or lower pets. May use a CH trained pet.
Non-CH
May NOT tame/train pets. May hold 2 pets in his datapad. May control 1 pet at a time. May controlCL 10 or lower pets. May use a CH trained pet.
-------
In this case, a Former CH, and a Non-CH are .identical. as it should be. Do I even need to list how this is not the case with Ex-Merchants and their vendors? Whether this system is working as 'described' is disputable, since a cogent argument can be made that there is more to 'Management' than 'placing'. If you want to argue that the 'semantics' of the skill description indicate that this is how the skill is supposed to work? Fine I'll grant you that. But don't pretend that any other 'skillmod' in the game works that way, or you're going to need to show me an ex-ch pulling graul maulers and rancors.
But this thread isn't 'A technical reading of the semantics of the Vendor placement skill description which shows there's wiggle room for keeping vendors', this thread is 'Some reasons why vendors should stay after you drop Merchant', that implies that there will be actually reasons given not simply semantics and controrted examples that bear no resemblance to the actual situation.
The closest thing to Attikus example is the Additional Pets +1 that are gained at Creature Management 3 and Master Creature Handler. Those +1s give the CH the ability to call one more pet. At MCH, they can call 3 pets simultaneously.
In theory, a CH could get to Master, call three pets, and under the current system they could probably still have those three pets out. They would then be a non-MCH with three pets out.
The big difference is that eventually they will have to store those pets. They will log out; they will have to put one away to tame another pet; they might want a different pet and have to put one away. As soon as they're down to two pets, they can no longer call a third one. If they could stay online indefinitely and never needed to put a pet away, they could have3 pets out as a non-MCH.
That's the big difference though. Vendors are forever as long as you pay the maintenance. A non-MCH having three pets out will correct itself within a few hours at most. A non merchant having more vendors out than they are allowed will never correct itself.
So while technically the ability to do so is there, I highly doubt it's what was intended.
All of Attikus' arguing that wounds don't come back after a medic untrains, or that buffs don't disappear if someone untrains chef are irrelevant. Those are temporary effects granted to an end user who uses something created by another class. We're not saying that everything purchased through a vendor get deleted if that vendor is removed. We're saying that the person who has the vendors should not have the vendors if they don't have the skills. In that respect, the purchased item from the vendor is to the stim as the ability to maintain a vendor is to the ability to create a stim.
Despite Attikus' literal interpretation of the skill description, I'm not convinced. He's probably a seven day creationist also.
ASHRID wrote:Bottom line
We all _know_ how is _supposed_ and _intended_ to work, but some of us are hiding behind (often very convincing) arguments that are either supposed to make them feel better about being an exploiter, or a vain attempt to kill off the inevitable nerf
We all _know_ the nerf is coming, maybe not before 'droid invasion' or 'imperial crackdown' but its coming and the devs have asked Doc to try ask how we feel this would be best implimented
The time for debating this is well past (to be fair there never really was a time) you'd all be better off putting your energy into propsing ways so that you dont just automatically lose everything when the nerf bat swings
Actually, NONE of us KNOW how the devs intended it to work. Their intent has not been made clear in this matter, as far as I'm concerned. However, as it has been said- this feature is working as documented. Whether it is working as intended is something that only a dev can answer.
Claiming it is otherwise is assuming a knowledge you do not possess, and this is not only unseemly, it is unwarranted.
Eola wrote:
JimerLins wrote: Attikus, while a bit strident at points, is absolutely correct in that the skill is working as described. His arguments are cogent (his flames notwithstanding), his reasoning sound, and examples correct.A few things occured to me last night which were the only things that brought me back to this thread, in essence these are more ways in which the argument that it's 'just like other skillmods' completely falls apart under close inspection. Since CH keeps getting brought up as the poster child of this argument, we'll use CH as the example in this case as well.
Master CH
May tame/train pets. May hold an additional number of pets in his datapad. May control a larger number of pets at the same time. May control higher CLs of pets. May use a CH trained pet.
Former CH
May NOT tame/train pets. May hold 2 pets in his datapad. May control 1 pet at a time. May control CL 10 or lower pets. May use a CH trained pet.
Non-CH
May NOT tame/train pets. May hold 2 pets in his datapad. May control 1 pet at a time. May control CL 10 or lower pets. May use a CH trained pet.
-------
In this case, a Former CH, and a Non-CH are .identical. as it should be. Do I even need to list how this is not the case with Ex-Merchants and their vendors? Whether this system is working as 'described' is disputable, since a cogent argument can be made that there is more to 'Management' than 'placing'. If you want to argue that the 'semantics' of the skill description indicate that this is how the skill is supposed to work? Fine I'll grant you that. But don't pretend that any other 'skillmod' in the game works that way, or you're going to need to show me an ex-ch pulling graul maulers and rancors.
But this thread isn't 'A technical reading of the semantics of the Vendor placement skill description which shows there's wiggle room for keeping vendors', this thread is 'Some reasons why vendors should stay after you drop Merchant', that implies that there will be actually reasons given not simply semantics and controrted examples that bear no resemblance to the actual situation.
I don't personally care for analogies much, they tend to cloud the discussion. My position on the matter derives simply from the documentation we possess, such as it is. The skill is described as being able to place vendors, and nothing else. This skill does function as described.
You may not *like* this. It may not even be a good thing. But it is true that currently, the skill works as documented, nothing more. Analogies can be made and picked apart all day, and only serve to distract from the simple point that the skill is described using a certain phrasing, and the skill works true to that phrasing.
Dismissing such things as "semantics" is inappropriate, because it assumes a level of knowledge about the intention behind the feature that I don't think anyone who is not a developer has.
The question that is far more appropriate is whether this should be changed or not. It is manifestly not an exploit, and it is not a bug. It may be a game mechanic that should be changed, but that does not make it an exploit or bug.
BoberFett wrote:Oops, meant to say that "under the current system they could drop Master Creature Handler and they could still have those three pets out."
I would like to see what would happen if a person had a pet, then dropped the skills with the pet out.
I'll be trying it soon, as I'm dropping CH almost entirely. I'll pull my Mountain Dewback out, and drop a couple CH boxes and see what happens. I'll report my findings back here.
I'll tell you what will happen- nothing at all, until you store the pet or it is stored for you. There is an outside chance that the game will check your pets out when you drop a skill required to control them, but I'd put that at very minimal.
There are two things that will happen, I believe: 1) Nothing. Pet will continue to act as it would if you were still a MCH, accepting commands and so on, until it is stored, at which time you will be unable to call it back out. 2) (much less likely, I think) The pet will remain out, but will fail to follow commands given by you because when the game tries to execute them, a skill check is made. This is highly unlikely, but possible.
The reasoning behind this is the game design is one that tends to check for such things at a "state change", i.e. when you pull a pet out of the datapad. This is why you can get buffed, put on heavy armor, and let the buff wear off but keep the armor on. The game does not seem to do much checking about skill state changes, which is why you have to pay your vendors at least once to get the new maintenance rate when you reach master, and so on.
lame. if one doesn't want to lose those items, then one should keep the skill or remove them from vendor. end of story.
Attikus wrote:
The skill tree is called "management" and is described as "each rank in Management grants the Merchants to place an additional Vendor" - "Place" not "Use"
Once you hire and place a vendor, you have used the skill to hire and place them... they are there. If you suddenly unlearn that skill, it doesnt mean you didnt hire and place that vendor - it just means you cant hire and place any more vendors.
Nope, a crafter can create a schematic, drop the class, and continue to use the schematic to make armor without being an armorsmith. It is identical to the merchant.
Based on these two quotes then we should be able to do a /transfervendor. After all, all we're doing is hiring the guy. Anyone can run him. And as someone else pointed out, if you have a schematic, it doesn't matter what class you are, you can still use it. Just a person of the class that needs to make the schematic needs to create and then trade it to you.
So we should be able to walk up to any terminal, create a vendor and give it to someone else and let them run it.
Guess what? We can't. So my interpretation from that is that the intent, word phrases aside, is the skill is more than just there to hire vendors.
If you haven't experienced it yet, the messages that the game aren't terribly descriptive. Heck, for the longest time I couldn't get a pet transferred to me because its level was too high even though my datapad was empty. And you want to know what the message I got was? "You have too many pets already in your datapad." Obviously, this means zero pets in my datapad is too many.
As for the argument that we shouldn't do it because there are too many empty vendors now, well I would think that if it became harder to acquire vendors we'd actually see more of them really being used. The flood of vendors by non-Merchant folks now is more the cause of empty vendors.
Good point Dedrima. You can't /transferstructure a tent to somebody without them having Efficiency 4. Does anybody have the EXACT wording of the tent skill in front of them? Does it say "Allows you to PLACE a merchant" or "Allows you to USE a merchant tent"?
If it says PLACE, but then can't transfer it to somebody with the appropriate skill, that means that the Merchant developer uses the word PLACE and USE interchangably. Then either tents need to be transferrable to a non-merchant or vendors need to disappear if you drop the skills.