Merchant Archive
Thread: The nonskilled ‘merchant’ problem – or be careful what you ask for.
Page 9 of 9
Be0Wulfe
Fri Aug 20, 2004 5:48 pm
#105
SeraphinAnnie wrote:Actually, I don't think this is a trick to force people to buy more accounts. I actually think it has more to do with cleaning up the database, than it does with Merchants themselves. Goes along with the purge quite nicely. Just my opinion though.
Not too far from the truth me thinks, but the change should be made for valid reasons. I've not been paying monthly fees for you (SOE) to come and tell me you fumbled the DB and would I please just settle for LESS this month than last.
By all means, fix the merchant skills issue that's been around for over a year, but, fix your own DB issues without enforcing artificial limits.
Wire3k
Fri Aug 20, 2004 6:30 pm
#106
SeraphinAnnie wrote:
Actually, I don't think this is atrick to force people to buy more accounts. I actually think it has more to do with cleaning up the database, than it does with Merchants themselves. Goes along with the purge quite nicely. Just my opinion though.
I don't think so either, overtly - but hmmmm - sure makes for a happy accident huh. Problem is there have been a whole lot of these little 'accidents' ever since release and at some point it builds up enough momentum to overcome players natural interia to leaving. Plus - they have plausible deniabilty, naw - this isn't OUR fault - look - those merchants had this list.
There are cases when players are faced with decisions (like item limits) where they know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they cannot function and there is no point in continuing.
Then there are the changes that nibble or take a bite out of a players experience - but aren't QUITE enough, and players try to adapt. The enjoyment has to be balanced against the cumulation of those changes - the number and proximity of which also figures into the equation. That's going to be different for every player depending on how much it effects them. Then of course, you have a natural cascade effect where the player that finally gets fed up starts a chain reaction amongst that particular community. Do most players actually think this process thru - nope, they just know when the day arrives that it just isn't fun to log on anymore.
SeraphinAnnie
Sat Aug 21, 2004 12:31 am
#107
Okie, I'm not going to sit and pull quotes and respond to them all. So, I'll just respond in general to the posts I missed while busy the past 2 days. It's all been said, but oh well, this thread should of died already anyway.
Wire3k,
I've gone back and read the past month or so on here. Sure, there's many merchants who responded badly to non-merchants. I suppose it never occured to you, that you don't see all the bad behavior and posts by your non-merchants, because of your belief that it's ok to abuse the bug? Many many of the non-merchant posts were full of flaming and demanding. Maybe many merchants are pissed that the bug has been used and abused for so long. People come and post on their boards, asking for a favor? Asking for help to let them continue to abuse a bug in their profession? And you think merchants should of been happy to accomodate them? Er, not likely. I'm not excusing poor behavior, and I'll agree that many flames were unjust. But what I am saying is, you post in defense of the non-merchants as if they've been SO innocent and sweet and the mean old merchants stomped on their foot and threw mud in their eye. That is hardly the case. If SOE read the honest well though out proposals by non-merchants, that did not include wanting to use the bug, they'll consider it despite how much mean stuff merchants post in response. All gaming forums are full of crap and immaturity, and in this case, it came from both sides.
You are also assuming that the non-merchants wants aren't being considered. SOE doesn't tell us everything they're planning. Just because they don't give it to them right now, doesn't mean that it isn't being planned. Everyone waits their turn. You persistantly post that you've been asking for it for 8 months. Yeah...and? You know better than to assume that there aren't other issues that have not been addressed in that time and longer. You won't get sympathy for that, considering how many broken issues have not been fixed since release. You want a perk, and that you have to wait for. The time will eventually come for all. Demanding it right NOW because it suits your desire is not a good excuse to behave poorly.
The uproar by merchants was not simply a matter of "hurt feelings". It's not a merchant thing. It's a FAIR thing. Merchant profession was the only one in the game that you can do this. Period. It should of never gone on as long as it did. Now it is being fixed. Your whole reasoning that it is indeedfair because "it doesn't hurt anyone, except Merchant's feelings" is invalid, proven by the fact that SOE said long ago "No, it'sa bug, it's not fair, and we will fix it".
This game was not designed to have everything you want for free. Everyone is limited. It sure would be nice to use stims to heal myself when my crafter gets attacked, but I can't unless I invest in it. I had to weigh my options and go for what I could. No one is special. No player's template is more deserving of free skills than others. We all have to pick and choose, and are held back by skill points.
Since you believe there's nothing wrong with using skills you don't have the skill for, there's not much more to say. That matter is not one of opinion. It's a fact of the mechanics of the game...it was never meant to be, proven by SOE stating so, and fixing it. If you don't believe it, that's your deal. In conclusion, as I've said, if you want to rally for non-merchants to get a mailbox or free limited vendor, then do THAT. Most of the angry non-merchants aren't fighting for that. They want the bug, all for free, and to keep abusing the merchant profession.
It's too bad you can't see what is right for the interest of the game, beyond your own desires. You say that you are only sticking up for others. Yet, your nobility runs short when it comes to balance and justice for everyone. Most people won't agree with you based on that fact. Instead of asking "Does it hurt anyone?" you should be asking "Is it fair in general?". You claim you only want what is fair for non-merchants, yet refuse to see whatwas unfair to merchants. It's hypocritical, and people don't like that. If you want people to take your desires seriously, then try sticking up for all that is unfair.
In general:
You don't NEED vendors. No one NEEDS vendors. They are a "want". If you want them, you invest in them, just like *every other profession in the game*. If you want a skill that only another profession provides, then you MUST invest in the points.
You might want vendors, but that is NOT a reason for allowing people to have skills from another profession for free. Just because you think Merchant isn't worth the points, or isn't a valid enough profession, does not mean that it is fair for it to be taken advantage of like no others in the game can.
Many people have been playing without their own vendor for a long time. It was done before, and will continue to be done. Whether you want to accept it or not, vendor ability IS...I repeat...IS a Merchant only skill. At least, it was always supposed to be.
If people abused the bug, knowing full well they shouldn't, and they became dependant on those vendors, they still only have themselves to blame. They have no right to blame SOE for taking them away. Despite the fact that those people came to "need" said vendors, they were never supposed to have them. If they want them now, they must invest in the skill points. Just like every other skill in the game.
lisasdarren
Sat Aug 21, 2004 2:41 am
#108
Wire3k wrote:
We can agree to disagree on this - but the final decision is in the hands of the players. Would this be a major problem if players felt their needs that the system created by virtue of design decisions be nearly as crippling if they were addressed FIRST? Most likely not. How would you like to buy a car - drive it for a year, then have the engine recalled and be told - oh yeah, we'll get ya something to do that same job, probably be a year or so - OR you can rent this nice bright shiny new engine right now, course it will cost ya an extra 15.00 a month.
The more transparent the push to encourage multiple accounts becomes the less likely players are to do it - or continue to do it even if they already have multiples.
Your analogy is flawed
Using the car analogy its more like buying a car with no engine regulator and being able to drive as fast as you wish (even when it is illegal) and then a yaer later being told that you have to have an engine regulator fitted that will stop you from speeding.
They are not taking away funcionality that was explicitly given upon purchase, when you bought the game you would have known about the skill point system, and not necessarily about the ways to bend the rules to avoid the restrictions. They are taking away unintended and unpromised functionality that is being abused by the users.
Wire3k
Sat Aug 21, 2004 11:05 am
#109
I can see how you might think that, only problem is - the car is a Model T - is still a Model T, and even if you spend another 15.00 a month - it's still....a Model T. They aren't even replacing it with a freaking skateboard. AS a merchant - I'm far more upset that I'm forced to drive a Model T - than others might also be sharing my road.
lisasdarren wrote:
Wire3k wrote:
We can agree to disagree on this - but the final decision is in the hands of the players. Would this be a major problem if players felt their needs that the system created by virtue of design decisions be nearly as crippling if they were addressed FIRST? Most likely not. How would you like to buy a car - drive it for a year, then have the engine recalled and be told - oh yeah, we'll get ya something to do that same job, probably be a year or so - OR you can rent this nice bright shiny new engine right now, course it will cost ya an extra 15.00 a month.
The more transparent the push to encourage multiple accounts becomes the less likely players are to do it - or continue to do it even if they already have multiples.
Your analogy is flawed
Using the car analogy its more like buying a car with no engine regulator and being able to drive as fast as you wish (even when it is illegal) and then a yaer later being told that you have to have an engine regulator fitted that will stop you from speeding.
They are not taking away funcionality that was explicitly given upon purchase, when you bought the game you would have known about the skill point system, and not necessarily about the ways to bend the rules to avoid the restrictions. They are taking away unintended and unpromised functionality that is being abused by the users.
Page 9 of 9