Merchant Archive
Thread: Dropping skills (NOT another can I keep my vendors? thread :-))
i dropped my novice merchant to free up skills for another profession. Been checking for the last couple days and nothing has changed... Iknow one day I'm going to check and poof! gone!
Naija wrote:
i dropped my novice merchant to free up skills for another profession. Been checking for the last couple days and nothing has changed... Iknow one day I'm going to check and poof! gone!
p4Samwise wrote:
The question is: is Hiring "intended" to provide its benefit when the vendor is created, or is it intended that the Hiring skill must be kept in order to maintain vendors hired with that skill?
The SOE mutterings that have percolated down to our ears don't indicate that the devs are concerned with this issue as it pertains to anything other than the Management line, so I'd be inclined to say that Hiring only applies to the actual hiring (fancy that). It might all become moot with the mythical"vendor revamp", though (like taking the Hiring tree out entirely, making all vendor options available out of the box, and replacing that tree with something that has more tangible benefits).
We've had this discussion before, Samwise. Looking at it at face value. What would the overall gain of the person that keeps the skill points locked up in that branch versus someone that drops it yet keeps the benefits? NONE!!!
The intention is clear. Hiring is made to maintain your number of vendors kept at any given time, not some one-time shot.
Balkstar wrote:
p4Samwise wrote:
The question is: is Hiring "intended" to provide its benefit when the vendor is created, or is it intended that the Hiring skill must be kept in order to maintain vendors hired with that skill?
The SOE mutterings that have percolated down to our ears don't indicate that the devs are concerned with this issue as it pertains to anything other than the Management line, so I'd be inclined to say that Hiring only applies to the actual hiring (fancy that). It might all become moot with the mythical"vendor revamp", though (like taking the Hiring tree out entirely, making all vendor options available out of the box, and replacing that tree with something that has more tangible benefits).
We've had this discussion before, Samwise. Looking at it at face value. What would the overall gain of the person that keeps the skill points locked up in that branch versus someone that drops it yet keeps the benefits? NONE!!!
The intention is clear. Hiring is made to maintain your number of vendors kept at any given time, not some one-time shot.
Message Edited by p4Samwise on 05-25-2004 03:21 PM
p4Samwise wrote:
In that case, "hiring" was the worst possible title they could have given the skill branch, eh?
Judging by many of the poor wording choices that SOE has done in the past (i.e. PLACING),I would say yes.
The overall gain of the person who has those skill boxes is that they can replace their vendors (hire new ones). Is that a benefit? Yes, at least to some people. Those who hire their vendors once and never replace them probably won't use that skill much. I, personally, like having the flexibility of replacing and redressing my vendors.
Do you really think that most exploiters are that sad because they no longer can change the look of their vendors once they set it permenantly? I myself highly doubt it, and I'm sure that my breatheren in the merchant community doubt it as well. You on the other hand could really feel the pinch, due to your usage of vendors as manniquins and changing styles on them for different seasons, as it is very important to you. I'll tell you right now that you are in the minority.
Is it worth 14 skill points? Well, maybe not. But then, there are lots of other skill trees in the game that are all but worthless in and of themselves, so there's a precedent established. This is why I suspect (nay, hope)that the "vendor revamp" might dispense with the tree entirely, give itsbenefits to all vendorsand replace the skill tree with something that has benefits befitting a "merchant" rather than an "interior decorator".
Well that may be in the future, but I'm not a mind reader of the devs, so I'm going to go by what's presented to me now. The branch may be limited, but the fact is that by exploiting, all of the limited benefits of that branch can be recieved for free with no long term skill point cost: 1.The ability to use any type of NPC and droid vendor. 2.The ability to clothe the vendor permenantly in clothes the merchant chooses.
Smugglers are getting their Underworld tree (now there's a useless tree if there ever was one)revamped, supposedly, so anything is possible.
Not necesarily useless, especially if you are in a guild. I have been able to provide my guild factional itemswithout grinding countlessfaction missions, which are a total pain. Also when I was PvPing in faction wars way back when, it was nice not to lose a huge lot of faction points when DBed.
Skill usage is what you make of it. What one man's trash can be another man's treasure.
p4Samwise wrote:
Balkstar wrote:
Ah, there's the difference between you and me. You see a skill tree with limited usefulness and a name that reflects that limited usefulness, and assume that the limited usefulness was an accident, and the name that reflects it was just an unfortunate coincidence.
I see the same skill tree and assume that it's functioning (and named) as designed, and that the underlying design was poor.
OK your logic is starting to baffle everyone (probably limiting too much) Instead I'll provide an examples:
1. Player A is a Master Doctor by profession. He is limited in the number of skills he can use in artisan, but wants to sell medpacks and buffs. He has just made it to Novice Merchant, and has laid down 3 basic NPC vendors.
2. Player B is a Master Merchant. He has 5 NPC vendors dropped all with matching clothing. They are all on the plantary map.Not particualrly a crafter by trade, he instead focused on making buisness deals between himself, crafters, and consumers.
3. Player 3 is a Master Weaponsmith/Master Smuggler. Before he used up his skill points into his main professions,he decided to dabble in the Merchant Tree. Lets say for the sake of arguement, he gets Merchant 3/0/4/3. He drops his 5 vendors (all exclusive NPC vendors in the Management branch), puts matching clothes on them, and adds them to the global map. He then realizes that his skill points are better off used to finish off his primary professions. Not to look inappropriate for stealing skills, he keeps just enough skill points in so that he keeps Novice Merchant.
Lets compare the 3 shall we?
Player 1 Player 2 Player 3
Number of fully functional vendors3 5 5
Number of NPC vendors3 5 5
Number of high level NPC vendors 0 55
Number of custom clothed vendors 0 55
Number of vendors on the map 0 5 5
Skill points currently used in merchant/business207120
With all things being equal, the column 1 and 3 should be exactly the same as they are using the same exact number of skill points. However, if you look closer columns 2 and 3 are suprisingly similar. The difference between Player 1 and 3 is Player 1 never took a jaunt up any of the Merchant branches. Shouldn't Players 1 and 3 have exactly the same level of skills? You would hope, but it does not appear that way. For some strange reason Player 3 is percieved to have more skills in merchant than Player 1, although it does not show in the skill point distribution. Sounds like a bug to me.
Before you go off and say, "Well Player 1 should have went up the Merchant skill tree branches to pick those skills up," ask yourself: Is there any other profession you need to go up and thenright backdown as a prerequiste to being successful?
I think my interpretation of the system in place falls right on the mark compared to your fairytale interpretation.
The ability to buy faction points is relatively new. Before that, the two benefits of the Underworld tree (if I remember right... I'd ask my smuggler friend, but he quit the game out of disgust over the uselessness of the Underworld tree)were decreased FP loss on death and the ability to speak all languages. The fact that the ability to speak all languages was given as an elite-levelskill (and still is) when every character can know every language (except lekku, and any Twi'lek character knows that regardless of profession) should show you how much thought goes into the usefulness of the skill trees.
Actually its not really that new. When I became a Master in November, I was immediately inundated with requests to buy skill points. Back then I was only a Lieutenant, so it was vertually impossible to make a buck on it. Then the faction wars cooled, and by the time I became a full bird Col. in Febuary, noone wanted to buy.
The market was out there. It's just that you missed it.
Skill usage is what you make of it. What one man's trash can be another man's treasure.
The same statement could be used to argue that Hiring (and Management, for that matter) is perfectly useful and worthwhileeven if it only applies to "placement".
Almost every skill has some use, even if it's only a minor benefit to a very small group of players.
Rules-lawyering is going to get you nowhere. Use and abuse are 2 different things in my book. As you can se by my example above, "placement" would not best describe the use of the skill.
Balkstar wrote:
I think my interpretation of the system in place falls right on the mark compared to your fairytale interpretation.
You're arguing for why it would be a better, fairer design for the system to work a certain way. I'm not disagreeing with that.
I'm disagreeing with the notion that because it's a better design, that must have been what they had in mind.
Actually its not really that new.
It wasn't in at launch. It was an afterthought - added fairly soon after launch, but still, after launch, and only in response to outcry from the Smuggler community. The Underworld tree was designed and released to paying customerswithout a single useful ability. And boxes 1-3 are still completely useless (and gained by means of Pistol experience, despite having nothing to do with combat whatsoever, much less Pistol combat in particular).
The Merchant skill tree is more or less unaltered from its state at launch, as far as I can remember.
Meditate on this. Then tell me that really, the skill tree was designed to be perfectly fun and balanced, and that it was only the implementation, skill titles, and skill descriptions that werea little buggy, and that they're sure to correct those typos any day now.
Skill usage is what you make of it. What one man's trash can be another man's treasure.
The same statement could be used to argue that Hiring (and Management, for that matter) is perfectly useful and worthwhileeven if it only applies to "placement".
Rules-lawyering is going to get you nowhere. Use and abuse are 2 different things in my book. As you can se by my example above, "placement" would not best describe the use of the skill.
I'm not rules-lawyering. I'm simply showing youthat your statement can be used to defend brokenness in any skill tree - you're saying that there is no such thing as a useless skill.
Well, I'm saying that by all appearances (the "best description" that the developers were able to give it as well as the way it actually behaves in game), Hiring as a skill solely pertains to the hiring of vendors. You responded by saying that this makes no sense because Hiring would then be an all but useless skill. Then later you said there's no such thing as a useless skill, and skills are what you make of them. See where I'm going here?
And then you say that I'm the one living in a fairytale. It's kinda cute.
Message Edited by p4Samwise on 05-26-2004 02:14 PM
p4Samwise wrote:
You're arguing for why it would be a better, fairer design for the system to work a certain way. I'm not disagreeing with that.
I'm disagreeing with the notion that because it's a better design, that must have been what they had in mind.
There is a hugedifference between little and none. Little means that you get a little value for your effort and cost. None means nada, zilch, zippo, "Not tonight hun. I have a headche"!There is NO benefit to merchants that keep skill points in the profession when compared to people that exploit the branch by going in and out of it. Those expoiters get the entire skillset in thatbranchpermenantly. We merchants get the entire shaft, not "a little" of it.
It wasn't in at launch. It was an afterthought - added fairly soon after launch, but still, after launch, and only in response to outcry from the Smuggler community. The Underworld tree was designed and released to paying customerswithout a single useful ability. And boxes 1-3 are still completely useless (and gained by means of Pistol experience, despite having nothing to do with combat whatsoever, much less Pistol combat in particular).
The Merchant skill tree is more or less unaltered from its state at launch, as far as I can remember.
Do you think that SOE jumped on this probably becuase there were a few more Smugglers then merchants at the time? I think that SOE only listen to the loudest voices when deciding what to fix. Fact is its on the fix block for SOE.
Meditate on this. Then tell me that really, the skill tree was designed to be perfectly fun and balanced, and that it was only the implementation, skill titles, and skill descriptions that werea little buggy, and that they're sure to correct those typos any day now.
OK meditate on this. What skills within the branches of any profession can be duped by anyone that does not have skills into the profession. I can think of only 3, allin the merchant profession: Advertising, Management, and Hiring.
Do you mean to tell me that there is some true value in keeping the points in the tree when everyone else gets the value of the skills for free? Man I can't see it.
I'm not rules-lawyering. I'm simply showing youthat your statement can be used to defend brokenness in any skill tree - you're saying that there is no such thing as a useless skill.
What I'm saying is that the skills in the branchhave value, otherwiseJoe Schmowouldn't exploit itto usethe skills without inccuring cost. That is a bug that is being expolited to death, making the placing of skill points in the branch meaningless. What you are saying is that "placing" is the word that was always intended. It's rules lawyering when you spout that off when it is clearly said by the devs that the actual skills are not being used as intended. (i.e. directly opposing your viewpoint)
Well, I'm saying that by all appearances (the "best description" that the developers were able to give it as well as the way it actually behaves in game), Hiring as a skill solely pertains to the hiring of vendors. You responded by saying that this makes no sense because Hiring would then be an all but useless skill. Then later you said there's no such thing as a useless skill, and skills are what you make of them. See where I'm going here?
See my quote above. Its very clear what I know about the skills provided in that branch.
And then you say that I'm the one living in a fairytale. It's kinda cute.
Well you are. Say hello to Snow White when you see her.
Message Edited by p4Samwise on 05-26-2004 02:14 PM
Balkstar wrote:
There is NO benefit to merchants that keep skill points in the profession
Don't you think that this is the problem? lol. Merchants keep complaining about exploiters, but the real problem is that there is no benefit to keeping skill points IN merchant -- which is why people drop it.
And great posts Deadra.
Balkstar wrote:
You're arguing for why it would be a better, fairer design for the system to work a certain way. I'm not disagreeing with that.
I'm disagreeing with the notion that because it's a better design, that must have been what they had in mind.
There is a hugedifference between little and none. Little means that you get a little value for your effort and cost. None means nada, zilch, zippo, "Not tonight hun. I have a headche"!There is NO benefit to merchants that keep skill points in the profession when compared to people that exploit the branch by going in and out of it. Those expoiters get the entire skillset in thatbranchpermenantly. We merchants get the entire shaft, not "a little" of it.
Wrong! As we've already established, the benefit is that you can change/move/rename/redesign your vendors at any time. That is a benefit! It might not be a huge benefit, but itis most definitely not nada, zilch, orzippo! One man's trash is another man's treasure, remember?
Do you think that SOE jumped on this probably becuase there were a few more Smugglers then merchants at the time? I think that SOE only listen to the loudest voices when deciding what to fix. Fact is its on the fix block for SOE.
Irrelevant to the current discussion. The point of the example was that SOE's original designs are often imperfect. It sounds like you're agreeing. Saying that it's not working as designed because the way it's working is imperfect is therefore not a valid argument.
Now, you could very well argue that the Hiring tree should be designed to require continued skill point investment. That'd be a valid argument. However, you can't argue that its current implementation (which does not require continued investment) is counter to its design. And if it's not counter to design, it's not a bug, and needs more than a "bug fix" - it needs a complete "redesign", which is probably much more far-reaching than a simple fix.
You can make the "not working as intended"argument for Management, because there's ampleevidence to supportthe hypothesis that the Management tree isdesigned to be required for continued vendor management(including a quote that specifically mentions the Management branch, and the title "Management" itself, which does imply management rather than placement). However, you can't automatically extend it to Hiring, because no such evidence exists there.
I realize that you want for Merchant to require an ample amount of permanent skill point investment. However, your desire in itself does not suffice as evidence of developer intent.
Meditate on this. Then tell me that really, the skill tree was designed to be perfectly fun and balanced, and that it was only the implementation, skill titles, and skill descriptions that werea little buggy, and that they're sure to correct those typos any day now.
OK meditate on this. What skills within the branches of any profession can be duped by anyone that does not have skills into the profession. I can think of only 3, allin the merchant profession: Advertising, Management, and Hiring.
Do you mean to tell me that there is some true value in keeping the points in the tree when everyone else gets the value of the skills for free? Man I can't see it.
That only proves that it's broken. It doesn't prove that the brokenness isn't inherent in the design.
And actually, I could mention other duped skills:
Smuggler language skills: dupable by any player simply by learning languages
Smuggler "smuggling": dupable by any high ranked Imperial
Kinda sad that the examples that leap to mind most readily are both from the Smuggler Underworld tree, but there you are.
I also think the tradeable/keepable mfg. schematics are examples of "skill duping", even though that's very obviously there by design (but then again, so are the broken Smuggler abilities). Further evidence that the design is broken, if you ask me.
I'm not rules-lawyering. I'm simply showing youthat your statement can be used to defend brokenness in any skill tree - you're saying that there is no such thing as a useless skill.
What I'm saying is that the skills in the branchhave value, otherwiseJoe Schmowouldn't exploit itto usethe skills without inccuring cost. That is a bug that is being expolited to death, making the placing of skill points in the branch meaningless. What you are saying is that "placing" is the word that was always intended. It's rules lawyering when you spout that off when it is clearly said by the devs that the actual skills are not being used as intended. (i.e. directly opposing your viewpoint)
Again, when you say it's a "bug", you make the assumption that it's not working as designed. As I said, you have ample evidence of this for Management, but no leg to stand on for Hiring. There IS benefit to the Hiring branch - it applies solely to the act of hiring vendors. Coincidence? My theory is no. Would this mean that the concept of a "Hiring" skill branch is flawed and should be redesigned from scratch? I say yes. And I think you might agree with me.
And I at no time said that anything was clearly said by the devs. As with everything else, it's very vague. However, I think the "vague" informationthat I'm goingon is better than the completely imaginary information that you're going on.
And then you say that I'm the one living in a fairytale. It's kinda cute.
Well you are. Say hello to Snow White when you see her.
She wanted to know why you stood her up last night...