Merchant Archive
Thread: Using vendors to store items
So does anyone else remember this or has there been any official word on using vendors for storage from the Devs at all?
I remember that quote it was from Holocron and he said essentially that it was easier on the database if the item was in the vendor than if it was sitting on the floor. However, that doesn't mean that it isn't an issue at all. And in fact when the devs agreed to lengthen the auction time from 7 days to 30 days it was warned that item limits would probably result from the number of items on vendors.
If they took away all the vendors that stayed after people dropped the skills that gave them those vendors, they wouldn't have that much of a database issue with the houses.
I've stood on a soapbox too many times raging vengeful about all of the Nerf's aimed at reducing database storage, so I won't do it here....I'll just say that the Dev's brought it all on themselves and that there are plenty of ways to fix it (factory crates with volumns equal to resource containers, anyone?) without constantly taking things away from people who earned them and aren't exploiting to get them.....
GraySeven wrote:
If they took away all the vendors that stayed after people dropped the skills that gave them those vendors, they wouldn't have that much of a database issue with the houses.
I've stood on a soapbox too many times raging vengeful about all of the Nerf's aimed at reducing database storage, so I won't do it here....I'll just say that the Dev's brought it all on themselves and that there are plenty of ways to fix it (factory crates with volumns equal to resource containers, anyone?) without constantly taking things away from people who earned them and aren't exploiting to get them.....
Amen.
Also, stacking to 1 million units and stacking crates to 100 for all things would reduce my storage requirements by about 75%. Trust me, that's a LOT of storage reduction.
Fivo Asia
Amen.
Also, stacking to 1 million units and stacking crates to 100 for all things would reduce my storage requirements by about 75%. Trust me, that's a LOT of storage reduction.
Fivo Asia
Storage is a constant headache for me too. 99% of it is various resources and factory crates. Special drops are the worst, as each takes 1 slot and identical drops do not stack.
I still want merchant-only warehouses. Or rentable extra bank space...
If item limits in player housing was doubled, it would be closer to the real need for storage.
NJ62 wrote:
I think the devs specifically did not want us to store personal items on vendors, which would explain 1) the fact that vendors cannot be in private houses 2) the old system of maintenence was based on the price of the items in the vendor, making it such that you would pay a penalty if you listed items at high prices to prevent others from buying them 3) the current move toward vendor limits.
1) Yeah, I think public houses for vendors was probably to keep people from using them as storage. But also to encourage public sales.
Why would you put a vendor in a private house? Besides for storage? To restrict sales to only those people on the Entry List.
2) The old method of vendor maint was also a money sink.
Charging maint for the price of items posted drained alot of money from the game.
Unfortunately, it sucked rocks for all of us playing the game. If a fee had been taken on each sale of an item (sales tax), it still would have drained money from the game without hurting so much. But due to the high prices of some items, the old method hit the higher end crafters the hardest - weapons, armor, architect.
3) The suggestion for merchant limits has always been mentioned by the devs hand in hand with database problems.
I think the main or only concern is the database. Of course, there are plenty of other things that would also help alliviate DB problems - stacking, crates, vendors, etc.
But let's nerf first instead of addressing the problem in a logical and sensible manner.....
I still cannot see how a few hundred items to be a database problem.
Not even a few thousand. Per user.
On a properly set up database this should be child's play.
Cafa wrote:
GraySeven wrote:
If they took away all the vendors that stayed after people dropped the skills that gave them those vendors, they wouldn't have that much of a database issue with the houses.
I've stood on a soapbox too many times raging vengeful about all of the Nerf's aimed at reducing database storage, so I won't do it here....I'll just say that the Dev's brought it all on themselves and that there are plenty of ways to fix it (factory crates with volumns equal to resource containers, anyone?) without constantly taking things away from people who earned them and aren't exploiting to get them.....
Amen.
Also, stacking to 1 million units and stacking crates to 100 for all things would reduce my storage requirements by about 75%. Trust me, that's a LOT of storage reduction.
Fivo Asia
Heh... people complain about how uber rich some crafters get. Could you imagine how much cash crafters would be making if we sold guns in crates of 100 instead of 25? Or powerups in crates of 100 instead of 10.Also, I believe that limited crate size helps keep the 50 + 60 item limit on you person "reasonable". If you could carry 100 guns in a crate, 100 camps, 100 powerups, 100 brandys, 100 muon golds, etc, it could get pretty nasty.