Merchant Archive
Thread: Some reasons why vendors should stay after you drop Merchant.
JimerLins wrote:
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.
That was sort of my point. I'm almost sure nothing will happen. As you said, the system checks abilities at state changes. The overhead for constant state change would be enormous. Though it possible that dropping a skill box might be considered a state change and store your pets for you. That's what I'm going to find out. Has anybody here ever dropped a combat box while holding a weapon that you are subsequently not certified for to see if you get the "Not certified" message?
Back on point, a state change such as logging out or storing a pet is a common occurrence. There are any number of reasons that you'd need to store a pet at which point it is no longer callable. Vendors on the other hand will remain indefinitely as long as you pay the maintenance. Heck, they'll last a long time if you master merchant, register them on the map, get all possiblevendor reductions, pay in a million credits, then drop the skills.
BoberFett wrote:
JimerLins wrote:
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.
That was sort of my point. I'm almost sure nothing will happen. As you said, the system checks abilities at state changes. The overhead for constant state change would be enormous. Though it possible that dropping a skill box might be considered a state change and store your pets for you. That's what I'm going to find out. Has anybody here ever dropped a combat box while holding a weapon that you are subsequently not certified for to see if you get the "Not certified" message?Back on point, a state change such as logging out or storing a pet is a common occurrence. There are any number of reasons that you'd need to store a pet at which point it is no longer callable. Vendors on the other hand will remain indefinitely as long as you pay the maintenance. Heck, they'll last a long time if you master merchant, register them on the map, get all possible vendor reductions, pay in a million credits, then drop the skills.
The question is whether this is a problem or not. Personally, I don't think so. Others may not agree, that's their prerogative. If I were to drop Master Merchant tomorrow and keep my vendors, there is one thing that I could not do- move my vendors. If I decided I wanted to move, change the layout of my shop, or simply start offering some new products, I would be unable to.
My feeling is that keeping vendors after dropping the skill is not a major issue, and shouldn't be regarded as an exploit or even a bug. I would much rather see more incentives given to merchants to keep their master status than penalties used to prevent them from dropping it.
BoberFett wrote:
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.
Skill Name: "Place Merchant Tent"
Description: " Gives the merchant the ability to place a unique tent from which to sell goods."
Skill Mod: "Vendors" (+1)
Description: "For each point of Manage Vendor, the player may place a vendor in a structure"
Eola wrote:
JimerLins wrote:
Eola wrote:
JimerLins wrote:
The question is whether this is a problem or not. Personally, I don't think so. Others may not agree, that's their prerogative. If I were to drop Master Merchant tomorrow and keep my vendors, there is one thing that I could not do- move my vendors. If I decided I wanted to move, change the layout of my shop, or simply start offering some new products, I would be unable to.Incorrect. Since there is nothing keeping you from offering a new line of products to your vendor. While you couldn't change the name of your vendor, you could certainly stock it.
Since I keep seperate products on different vendors, I could not offer a new line of products using the method I do now. I stand by what I said.
Except that is not what you said. I've included your initial point above. You said:'If I decided I wanted to move, change the layout of my shop, or simply start offering some new products, I would be unable to.'
Your 'new' position is:
'I could not offer a new line of products using the method I do now'
These are completely different arguments. That you would choose not to offer up new items, because you cannot do it as do now does not mean you would be unable to. I trust that we don't need to dissect these two differing statements for you to agree that these statements are not the same? Or are we being that obtuse now?
I mentioned a few things I could not do that I currently do as a Merchant, you focused on one point, I clarified, and now I've made a new argument? And you're calling ME obtuse?
Sorry, denied.Since this argument is about the class as a whole and not simply how you or I choose to play it, your personal distaste for re-using a vendor has absolutely no place as a basis of argument that someone would lack the capability to do so.
And as to the second point, argumentum ad numeram is not a good one. Being in the majority does not make you right, nor does it make my opinion as a Master Merchant less valid. I don't require anyone's approval for my opinions, and I have no problem at all holding an opinion the majority does not hold. You may find it worrisome, I do not, and have not seen any arguments thus far that have changed my opinion on the matter.
Amusing. Your point was that you do not feel this is a major issue, my point was simply that there are obviously other merchants that disagree. You will note that at no time did I state you were in the minority, or that we were the majority or that I was right, or that you were wrong nor that your opinion was invalid. Those are complete fabrications of your own making. Please don't martyr yourself on my account, it's cold here in the Northeast and I can use the wood for better things.
Your implication (based on the number of pages this thread has reached) was clear, and I don't think my interpretation was out of line. You have definitely been asserting and/or implying you are correct, even going so far as to use personal insults (clown) when I disagree with you.
Also, none of this addresses the orginial point, which still stands unrefuted. The feature currently works as documented. This is a fact, and one that no amount of chest-thumping or castigation of people who disagree with you will change. Personally, I don't have a problem with the way it works, and I'll reiterate that I think that there are better places to focus our energy. You obviously don't agree with this.
Eola wrote:I'll point out that I didn't insult you, I cited an example of the difference between derision and amusement.
Oh, do spare me. Your 'example' was simply another insult.
Personally I don't really see there's any point to further debate since at this point you're not arguing the issue you're arguing the method of arguing the issue. Additionally by ignoring the pointed examples where there are clear conflicts with your position you make it clear that your purpose isn't discussion to resolution, it's weighing in with one more piece of rhetoric than the next person.And .that. is a waste of my time.
Ah. Now who's being a martyr?
Folks lets tone down the flame just a bit ok?
It is clear that we have two camps here those who believe that the Merchant Vendor is the defining skill of the merchant class and thing that the use of that vendor without merchant skills (and for the purpose of this discussion I am including Business III) and those who don't believe that.If you don't believe that the vendor is what sets the merchants apart from the non merchants I would love to hear what you think does? What continuing skill do we have thatfacilitates our ability to sell merchandise and make a profit?
Perhaps you feel there isn't one. Ok..I might then argue that the use of a vendor is as legitimate as any other.
Forgetting what the intent might be or what the description might say.
Can you honestly say that the Vendor is the product of the work of a merchant? Isn't a work product by definition available to be sold or bartered? That isn't what we do is it? I suppose one could argue that the use of that vendor to sell something can be sold as a service. But the vendor in that scenario isn't the product..it is the tool to provide the service.
In my opinion merchants do not produce tangible goods. We provide a service. For a fee we take items from a crafter and put them in the hands of a consumer. Sometimes that crafter is ourselves but that isn't the point.Sometimes there isn't a crafter it is a resource gatherer. Again the service is still the same. We move a product from one owner to another and from that we extract a fee.
In that scenario it is clear that the vendor isn't a reward for our skills the fee is the reward. So removing the vendor when losing the skills isn't losing the reward it is losing the tool that makes it easier for us to sell things. You don't have to have a vendor to sell things. You can sell them on the bazaar or you can meet people in a cantina. Merchants sell things with the added advantage of having a 24hour (well 23 usually) a day vendor available to sell that merchandise.
First of all, what is this discussion giving us, other than migraines? The **edit** thing's broken no matter how you look at it. I don't care if Holocron designed it himself with a foot long erection. It still doesn't work. It's still a huge problem for our profession. And it still needs to be fixed pronto.
Secondly:
"I happen to like our correspondant, but we need a better community of contributing players (who hopefully understand how the baic game mechanics actually work) and someone to organize and direct the consensus that is developed from this community."-Attickus in another thread.
Attikus. We disagree on this issue. Vehemently. That's fine. Our disagreement really isn't what needs to be done. You've said it's stupid and screwed up. I've said it. We know it needs to be fixed. But do us all a favor. Don't EVER take an arguement off a thread unless it's relevant. That was a cheap shot. Don't get pissed about this, and then go bad mouthing us as idiots on another thread. You and I are seeing things from a different perspective. And it got heated. But don't take it to another thread, and hijack it, and bad mouth your fellow merchants, who really want the same thing as you, and act like it's constructive.
For one thing, I DO know what the hell I'm talking about. I know this game pretty **edit** well. I was among the first 100 beta testers in beta one. I've read every word the dev's have said about this game. I've been following the boards for two years before we even HIT beta. You don't know what the dev's intentions are? Well son, I DO. Because I've been reading about them for forever. And you and I don't have to agree. But dont' EVER do that again. That's a crappy thing to do. This community is one of the best on the boards. For the most part we ALL get a long. We ALL want the profession to get better. And most of the threads are on topic and constructive and have good ideas. You want dysfunction? Go check the Jedi boards before you go calling US ignorant (which is basically what you said in that thread). I don't want a response out of you. An apology. Nothing. I just want this whole thing dropped. Because really, no matter which one of us is right doesn't change the fact that it's a stupid broke ass mechanic that is a problem for our profession and it needs to be changed. So for the good of the community I say we call truce and let it go.
JimerLins wrote:
Eola wrote:
I'll point out that I didn't insult you, I cited an example of the difference between derision and amusement.
Oh, do spare me. Your 'example' was simply another insult.
No. As a matter of fact, since I've noticed that the 'insult' hasn't been quoted (which would seem to be an obvious way to point out that I was lying about it) I've cut and pasted it below.
'Additionally, I wasn't using you as a target for derision. I said it amused me, so if anything I was using you as a source of personal amusement. Similar, perhaps, to a clown. Now that, would be derision.'
You'll not where I said 'Now that, would be derision'. I.E. If I called you a clown, that would be derision. I'm sorry if I wasn't clearer in my post I'll again try to be less subtle in future.
Personally I don't really see there's any point to further debate since at this point you're not arguing the issue you're arguing the method of arguing the issue. Additionally by ignoring the pointed examples where there are clear conflicts with your position you make it clear that your purpose isn't discussion to resolution, it's weighing in with one more piece of rhetoric than the next person.
And .that. is a waste of my time.
Ah. Now who's being a martyr?
I'd still pretty much say you. You'll notice that nowhere in that statement did I say that I was in the minority, or imply that I was the lone voice of reason standing against the bullying crowd etc etc. I said, quite plainly and honestly, that if the point is to have a discussion, than I'm all for it, if the point is simply to pile up the sentences until the other side stops posting? Then I'll surrender the point because it .WOULD. be a waste of time.
There's a difference between making yourself out to be a martyr, and saying that the discussion is rapidly losing any value once had and is becoming a waste of time. I'm sorry that the difference between the two isn't clear to you, I really don't know how to make it so other than washing my hands of this thread.
Eola wrote:JimerLins wrote:
Your implication (based on the number of pages this thread has reached) was clear, and I don't think my interpretation was out of line. You have definitely been asserting and/or implying you are correct, even going so far as to use personal insults (clown) when I disagree with you.
Alrighty. For the record I respectfully request that you and anyone else who is so inclined please refrain from telling me what I meant.(snip)
Ah, so you don't like it when people tell you what you mean either, huh? How interesting. Considering that I protested you putting words in my mouth, this is hollow criticism at best.
And for the record, I respectfully don't believe you when you claim your comments weren't intended as insults. If they were not, they would have been phrased differently. I think any reasonable person who reads your comments about amusement and clown would reach the same conclusion I did- that you intended them as, at the least, backhanded insults.
Regardless of anything else, we've obviously lost track of the original discussion, and I think I'll just leave it be. You and I may not agree (or maybe we do, since I'm not going to try and interpret what you mean any longer, as that's apparently a no-no), but we're also not getting anywhere.
Good day.
Tis cool Doc. I'm out of the thread. Unfortunately I feel that this thread has lost what tangible value it had to start with. I would rather focus in other threads, like the one I started about the vendors and the merchant issues thread you started than go round and round in circles.
DocSavag wrote:
Folks lets tone down the flame just a bit ok?
Thanks Doc.
So using Attikus logic, the devs are wrong. They disallow you to transfer a tent to somebody without Efficiency 4 yet their documentation CLEARLY states that it only applies to PLACING a tent, not using one.
Sorry Attikus. You lose.
JimerLins wrote:
The question is whether this is a problem or not. Personally, I don't think so. Others may not agree, that's their prerogative. If I were to drop Master Merchant tomorrow and keep my vendors, there is one thing that I could not do- move my vendors. If I decided I wanted to move, change the layout of my shop, or simply start offering some new products, I would be unable to.
My feeling is that keeping vendors after dropping the skill is not a major issue, and shouldn't be regarded as an exploit or even a bug. I would much rather see more incentives given to merchants to keep their master status than penalties used to prevent them from dropping it.
If people having vendors beyond their Merchant skills isn't a problem, why not give 6 vendors at Business 3? Why make them go through merchant at all?