Merchant Archive
Thread: Is a cap on value of goods more acceptable/feasible for us to deal with?
Page 1 of 1
Mkappus
Tue Aug 10, 2004 4:10 pm
#1
I personally think capping the number of items for sale is the wrong approach. As many people point out, you can still put up 660 bags for 999,999,999 and store 30,000 plus items on your vendor. So an item cap doesn't really hurt the storage problem.
Everyone is talking about selling in crates or larger volume, which is fine, but really hurts the little guy or casual player.
Would a cap on the value of goods sold per vendor make more sense? Possibly a luxury tax if you put up more value for sale? I think this would allow people with tons of schematics (architect and tailor) to still do ok since their items are relatively low cost. Weaponsmiths and armorsmiths could decided to put more up for sale, but would have to pay a luxury tax for doing so. This would help make the newer guys more price competitive and give them a break.
Brilyn
Tue Aug 10, 2004 4:13 pm
#2
Congratulations, you just made vendors *completely* non-viable for Architects.
Brilyn
Tue Aug 10, 2004 4:14 pm
#3
Wait, you ARE an architect?!?!?!?
How can you see this NOT screwing yourself when you stock Fusions? Or Heavy Harvesters, or Houses??!?!?
VarnaxDespin
Tue Aug 10, 2004 4:17 pm
#4
This type of idea has potential, but it accepts the idea "the big guys" control everything and thats why we should limit vendors... which I dont believe.
The tax would not be welcomed, but 2-10mil cap per item would be more acceptable then a item limit. That would accomidate most loot and reasources without killing the crafters and "higher priced items" could be sold in person.
This would end the vendor storage issue as well.
Message Edited by VarnaxDespin on 08-10-2004 04:18 PM
Mkappus
Wed Aug 11, 2004 8:06 am
#5
I am an architect, but I don't do huge amount of harvestor sales on vendors. But if that was your core business with a 5 million credit limit per vendor you could still have 25-40 fusion/heavies for sale per vendor. Yes it would be a pain to have to restock more often. On the flip side, you could run a fully stocked furniture vendor with 500-1000 items and probably stay under the cap.
Im not sure what value would make the most sense for a cap either, just trying to look at a solution from a different angle.
For the devs this probably doesn't work, because they want to get rid of all the crap and low cost loot tangling up the database. So it may be a bad idea, but just a different approach.
Iannyen
Wed Aug 11, 2004 8:41 am
#6
___________________________
I think this would allow people with tons of schematics (architect and tailor) to still do ok since their items are relatively low cost.
___________________________
What exacty, is low cost, when looking at a City Hall?
Mkappus
Wed Aug 11, 2004 8:46 am
#7
Your telling me you actually stock city halls? I only do city structures to order. Why in gods name would you stock city halls?
speardancer
Wed Aug 11, 2004 8:52 am
#8
Biggest problem here, is with the different scales for cost of goods, according to craft, and according to the variance in the economies of the different servers, it would be too hard to find that 'right number' to set the value at.
The other issue here, is the devs have already coded a solution based off item count. Switching to a cost based limit at this time just isn't going to happen.
The other issue here, is the devs have already coded a solution based off item count. Switching to a cost based limit at this time just isn't going to happen.
Iannyen
Wed Aug 11, 2004 9:13 am
#9
I would stock them so that when someone came to my vendor, and wanted one, they could buy it, rather than send me a tell, find out I'm offline, and go shopping somewhere else.
Its easier to sell items that are in stock, than out of stock.
Mkappus
Wed Aug 11, 2004 11:52 am
#11
Upon further consideration this is not a good idea. I withdraw it as a suggestion.
It does not address the problem of too many items for sale, especially the low value crap items. So it will not clean up the database.
With the variable economies between servers coming up with a dollar cap range is not feasible. 5 million on farstar could be more than enough, but woefully inadequate on intrepid.
Page 1 of 1