Merchant Archive
Thread: Devils advocate post comparing merchant profession to politician
Page 1 of 1
Mkappus
Wed Jun 16, 2004 9:09 am
#1
One of the posters below makes a distinction based on semantics, the merchant profession give you the ability to place vendors, key word place not operate. The politician profession also give you the ability to place structures or recruit trainers.
Politician is the biggest skill point sink and waste of time there is. Almost every politician I know gets the skill they need, drop this structure or set this specialization, then drops the skill. Now, since the politician skill is for the good of the city and not an individual, no one seems to be bothered by poached city installations or poached trainers.
In the argument about vendors, are we setting a precedent that will have far reaching consequences in the game? Other examples are cantinas and med center, it takes master level to place them, but if you drop the skills I don't think they shut down. You can alsolook at the wholemineral extractor placement question. If you don't have novice artisan and can't survey for minerals, how/why should you be able to place a harvestor.
I realize as a profession we do need to keep an eye out for ourselves and protect our turf. At the same time I think we need to think globably and realize the impactdecisions may have. If vendors are only for merchants, then are harvestors only for artisans.......
I think merchants should get bonuses and perks, but we may need to allow basic vending abilities to be open to all for the game tobe more balanced and more fun.
For example, once you get business 3 you can place a vendor with a 50item cap. That vendor will continue tooperateeven if you drop business 3. Once you reach novice merchant your item cap is increased to 100. For each box of efficiencyyou get an additional50 items. At master merchant youget an extra 100 items per vendor.
This is a game and it needs to be fun for all.
DingoBoi
Wed Jun 16, 2004 9:43 am
#2
Mkappus wrote:
In the argument about vendors, are we setting a precedent that will have far reaching consequences in the game? Other examples are cantinas and med center, it takes master level to place them, but if you drop the skills I don't think they shut down. You can alsolook at the wholemineral extractor placement question. If you don't have novice artisan and can't survey for minerals, how/why should you be able to place a harvestor. Irrelevant. Harvester never required skills to place. You NEVER have to survey to use them. The skill is not required. However, it certainly helps locate good materials.
I realize as a profession we do need to keep an eye out for ourselves and protect our turf. At the same time I think we need to think globably and realize the impactdecisions may have. If vendors are only for merchants, then are harvestors only for artisans....... overrulled and striken from the record.. the jury will disregard.
I think merchants should get bonuses and perks, but we may need to allow basic vending abilities to be open to all for the game tobe more balanced and more fun. basic vending abilities ARE open to all through use of the bazaar. That is what it was designed for. The game is balanced. Invest the points.
This is a game and it needs to be fun for all. Which is why the poached vendors are being taken away... no poached vendors.
Cendatinea
Wed Jun 16, 2004 9:45 am
#3
Before I begin:
This is in NO WAY intended to be a flame or otheriwse derogatory post, it is simply the other side of a topic's debate. I hold great respect for Mkappus for having the courage to bring this up...even if I don't agree with him.
Like you, I am a mayor of a player city. I have been one since November 20, one week after player cities went live, in a city that was one of those placed the first day on Naboo. It has been very prosperous and has all the bells and whistles a city can have.
I, like many other politicians, do not have Master, although I did at one time. I am one of few who havethe unique background on which to stand and be qualified to speak on the comparisson you've offered.I am a master artisan, almost master merchant (1 more box which I will get today), master chef, and politician 4-2-2-0 (which is more than some) and can place and remove vendors, harvesters, city structures, etc. Oh, and anything my city has as far as placement-wise fits within the skills I currently have with the exception of gardens. We are a research center and our largest garden is a medium, but I dropped customization 3, which allows for garden placement. Our med center is held by a Master Doctor, and our cantina by a Master Dancer.
So what is my opinion on this? Simple:
Vendor/harvester placement is for personal gain.
City structure placement is for community benefit.
The primary difference being who benefits from the item placement.
In a city, several people benefit, possibly even hundreds of characters, making the placement justified. Additionally, if a city changes mayors and a new, less experienced mayor is in place, a qualification making a mayor required to keep the high levels of the skill tree could cripple an otherwise prosperous city. It would lose structures, often times very expensive ones, which would almost definitely result in the loss of citizens and the death of that city. Instead of punishing cities for using the system and changing mayors, the system allows for anyone to potentially sit in the mayor's seat without worrying about killing the very city they wish to serve.
Vendor placement, on the other hand, ultimately serves one person: the merchant. Most crafters have Master Artisan so they can have the experminentation bonus, so they can already place Ole Bulky. They don't NEED merchant to have a vendor, they do it for the aesthetic value and the ability to have more than one vendor. So why do they need more than one? Differentiation of stock, selling in different locations, etc. This all translates to: making more money. The argument can be made that a profitable merchant benefits the community by boosting its economy, and while this is true, it is the merchant who stands to gain and lose the majority of the benefit, not the community.
It is for these reasons I believe is unfair and unequal to compare city structures to vendors/harvesters. The parties they serve are different in both size and intention.
Cendatinea
Wed Jun 16, 2004 9:46 am
#4
Double post, my apologies.
Message Edited by Cendatinea on 06-16-2004 11:47 AM
Mkappus
Wed Jun 16, 2004 10:49 am
#5
Both excellent points. As I said I was playing devils advocate, and I think the vendor fix is a good thing. Just looking at the argument from both sides of the coin.
And politician to merchant is probably apples and oranges. You do have to have the system allow for a novice politician to take over for a master politician without penalizing the city.
Songe
Wed Jun 16, 2004 10:50 am
#6
Cendatinea wrote:
So what is my opinion on this? Simple:
Vendor/harvester placement is for personal gain.
City structure placement is for community benefit.
The primary difference being who benefits from the item placement.
.
Bingo.
Keep in mind also that the politician profession was partly designed this way so that changing from a master politician mayor to a novice politician mayor would not harm the city. While the devs stated that keeping vendors was a bug.
On a side note, comparing this to harvesters is like apples and oranges.
Page 1 of 1