Merchant Archive
Thread: Anyone else think that the limit will be raised by a factor of 3 just like the old 25 item per
Page 1 of 2
Madsapper
Sat Aug 07, 2004 7:14 pm
#1
IMO the current vendor item numbers come from a page in Ralph "Holocron" Koster's book of MMO player managment.
For those who weren't around in the beginning, houses used to have no limit on the number of items that could be stored. Then Holocron comes to the forums and says that the number of items that can be stored in houses is going to be limited to 25 items per lot. Major uproar follows for about a week or so, then he comes back and says that they'll raise it to 75 per lot minus the PA hall limit.Much rejoicing follows.
The above is a classic example of manipulation,and I personally believe that they're at it again. Some time next week the number of items per vendor will be raised by a factor of 3 onTC andthe majority ofconcerned players willbehappy that they raised thenumbers by that much.
I may be wrong on the amount the numbers will be raised, but the numbers WILL BE RAISED, and players will make posts like "Not as high as we wanted but we can live with it" etc. Watch and see.
For those of you who make it this far before you fire up the flame, I realize that changes need to be made, and I'm all for them being made. What I'm not happy with is blatant, in your face, manipulation.
If you can't see the manipulation, think about this. If they couldset the housing item limit to 75 per lot, why tell the community that it's going to be 25?
Message Edited by Madsapper on 08-07-2004 07:14 PM
Morwen
Sat Aug 07, 2004 7:19 pm
#2
It's pretty classic. The problem is it works because most players buy into it.
mhal9000
Sat Aug 07, 2004 7:19 pm
#3
I agree with you, but I don't know if I'd call it manipulation, unless you allow yourself to be manipulated. This is a bartering strategy, start out with a low bid, if they accept it right off the bat, you know two things:
1. You should've gone lower
2. You still got a heck of a deal.
What we as a community need to do is respond with our own "high bid", that will be summarily rejected, and then we can start shuffling numbers around till we meet in the middle. That's why it's important to communicate your ideas with Doc, because he's our only direct link to the Devs.
JudoKnight
Sat Aug 07, 2004 7:21 pm
#4
Even by a factor of 3 is not acceptable. Those of use who have legit businesses stock a massive amount of items on it when we can. We do this because there are other parts of the game that we want to enjoy. I don't think anyone is paying to "work" in this game. If you enjoy standing by your vendor or sitting in your house and actually get a chubber hearing your email box ding another sale, your a sadist.
Being a Master Tailor/Armorsmith/Artisan will not allow for a master merchant. So now I am supposed to limit the amount of items I stock on my 3 vendors?
Some people enjoy being a crafter in this game and providing servies and goods to others. I have my days were I feel like a nut and some days I wanna crush one.
Mezzellion
Sat Aug 07, 2004 7:23 pm
#5
But the main problem is this doesn't target teh bigger issue of illegal vendors (players that dont have skill but kept the vendors).
If the Devs target that issue first, the item count in game and vendor countwill drop rapidly.
-S.Shaw
Khristen
Sat Aug 07, 2004 7:34 pm
#6
I think you might be dead-on with this one.
But regardless of what we end up with, I don't like the idea of a per vendor limit. It just seems like you'd be saving a bit of that "precious" database if you let the players who want one vendor with all of their items on it have it.
They need to make merchant mean something more than how many items they can sell at a time, though. Either fix it so more than two (and efficiency 4...only box that has much worth from where I see it in the efficiency tree) trees have useful, long-term purposes or have merchant go the route of the miner class.
There are so many other things that could be done to help the database before trying something like this that is just making 99% of the entire community angry (when they're already angry about the push-back of Combat and GCW revamps). Get rid of crap loot drops like ugly clothing and crappy weapons....what purpose do they serve anyway? Go through with the changes to eliminate "illegal" and abandoned vendors. Get better servers. Clean up the dead weight of cancelled and deleted characters. Let items be stocked on a vendor in crates which can then have individual items sold from it. Lots of things have been suggested that would have a positive effect on the player base.
But instead we're getting a "fix" that wasn't talked about ahead of time, isn't getting any official recognition until the community has ample time to get angry about it (by releasing the information just before the weekend), may not even get any kind of official recognition even after that, and will essentially screw over the current economy.
They'll throw us a tiny sliver of a bone and we'll eat it up like the hungy strays that we are.
Madsapper
Sat Aug 07, 2004 7:54 pm
#7
mhal9000 wrote:
I agree with you, but I don't know if I'd call it manipulation, unless you allow yourself to be manipulated. This is a bartering strategy, start out with a low bid, if they accept it right off the bat, you know two things:
1. You should've gone lower
2. You still got a heck of a deal.
What we as a community need to do is respond with our own "high bid", that will be summarily rejected, and then we can start shuffling numbers around till we meet in the middle. That's why it's important to communicate your ideas with Doc, because he's our only direct link to the Devs.
The manipulation will occur when the "new" numbers are stated and people calm down. There is no barter system happening here.They HAD to make a decision on where the"we're not crossing this line"was before this went to TC. ie, THEY KNOW DAMN WELL WHAT THE ACTUAL NUMBERS WILL BE. And, I'll bet you ten dollars that when the "new" numbers are posted (and the numbers will only be changedon TC once, once) they'll say something along the lines of, "This is as high as we think we can go right now. After the JTL rush settles down and we've done the Combat Balance/Smuggler Revamp/SL Revamp/Misc Revamp we'll take another look at the numbers and see if they can be raised."
Maybe our definitions of manipulation differ. I see where you arecoming from, but don't agree. I love playing this game. I currently pay for 7 accounts. 4 for me and 3 for my girlfriend. Soon to be 8 so we can be equal 
I will continue to pay for these accounts till we no longer enjoy playing the game. Changes will be made and we as the community will adjust as needed. I'm just upset with the way some changes are announced and implemented.
I will continue to pay for these accounts till we no longer enjoy playing the game. Changes will be made and we as the community will adjust as needed. I'm just upset with the way some changes are announced and implemented.
Madsapper
Sat Aug 07, 2004 8:05 pm
#8
I agree that it doesn't solve the illegal vendor issue. Here's my solution to illegal vendors.
Mezzellion wrote:
But the main problem is this doesn't target teh bigger issue of illegal vendors (players that dont have skill but kept the vendors).
If the Devs target that issue first, the item count in game and vendor countwill drop rapidly.
-S.Shaw
Me:All vendors belonging to people who don't have the skills to have them were deleted today, whether the vendors haditems or not.
Player with illegal vendor: But that's not fair to me, Isold stuff from that vendor/I stored all my loot on that vendor.
Me: Yea, it is.
Player with illegal vendor: Why?.
Me: Because you couldn't place a vendor beforeyou trained in the proper skills. If you drop any other skill box in the game, you lose the skills that came with that box. It's common sense.
Player with illegal vendor: But I don't have common sense.
Me: Buy a helmet.
TheLadyLillith
Sat Aug 07, 2004 9:04 pm
#9
mhal9000 wrote:
I agree with you, but I don't know if I'd call it manipulation, unless you allow yourself to be manipulated. This is a bartering strategy, start out with a low bid, if they accept it right off the bat, you know two things:
1. You should've gone lower
2. You still got a heck of a deal.
What we as a community need to do is respond with our own "high bid", that will be summarily rejected, and then we can start shuffling numbers around till we meet in the middle. That's why it's important to communicate your ideas with Doc, because he's our only direct link to the Devs.
I agree. They're bartering. I just can't see how they could be so ignorant as to set it at 110 items per vendor at Master Merchant.
I think our counter offer should be 700 items per vendor at Master and see what they come back with.
Lillith
Vastar
Sat Aug 07, 2004 10:28 pm
#10
I agree, I'm pretty much just ignoring the vendor caps for now.
Of course, if it were to happen, it'd be fair. I mean, it's not like I'd be stuck with a 660 item limit and the merchant next door would get a 3,500 item limit. I'm not saying I'd be excited but I won't lose any sleep over it, that's for sure.
Of course, if it were to happen, it'd be fair. I mean, it's not like I'd be stuck with a 660 item limit and the merchant next door would get a 3,500 item limit. I'm not saying I'd be excited but I won't lose any sleep over it, that's for sure.
rexan
Sat Aug 07, 2004 11:23 pm
#11
Madsapper wrote:
IMO the current vendor item numbers come from a page in Ralph "Holocron" Koster's book of MMO player managment.
For those who weren't around in the beginning, houses used to have no limit on the number of items that could be stored. Then Holocron comes to the forums and says that the number of items that can be stored in houses is going to be limited to 25 items per lot. Major uproar follows for about a week or so, then he comes back and says that they'll raise it to 75 per lot minus the PA hall limit.Much rejoicing follows.
The above is a classic example of manipulation,and I personally believe that they're at it again. Some time next week the number of items per vendor will be raised by a factor of 3 onTC andthe majority ofconcerned players willbehappy that they raised thenumbers by that much.
I may be wrong on the amount the numbers will be raised, but the numbers WILL BE RAISED, and players will make posts like "Not as high as we wanted but we can live with it" etc. Watch and see.
For those of you who make it this far before you fire up the flame, I realize that changes need to be made, and I'm all for them being made. What I'm not happy with is blatant, in your face, manipulation.
If you can't see the manipulation, think about this. If they couldset the housing item limit to 75 per lot, why tell the community that it's going to be 25?
Message Edited by Madsapper on 08-07-2004 07:14 PM
I tend to agree with you. A 3x increase in what they currently have on test center seems reasonable. Though i would like to see a 5x.
Otherwise, you will be required to have Master Merchant just to service the sales of one elite crafting profession.
Enix_Dayspring
Sat Aug 07, 2004 11:28 pm
#12
This has crossed my mind as well.
Same thing they do with gas prices. They start out at a $1.50/ gallon, then they pump the price up to $2.20/ gallon for several months and theres an outcry. Then they knock the price back down to $1.80/ gallon and were so happy were not paying 2.20 anymore that we dont complain as much about gas costing .30 more per gallon than it did before.
Classic manipulation tactics.
rexan
Sat Aug 07, 2004 11:43 pm
#13
Enix_Dayspring wrote:
This has crossed my mind as well.
Same thing they do with gas prices. They start out at a $1.50/ gallon, then they pump the price up to $2.20/ gallon for several months and theres an outcry. Then they knock the price back down to $1.80/ gallon and were so happy were not paying 2.20 anymore that we dont complain as much about gas costing .30 more per gallon than it did before.
Classic manipulation tactics.
Great analogy.
Page 1 of 2