Merchant Archive
Thread: Lets make a point. How many will quit/unsubscribe if the limit/pack changes go in.
Page 1 of 1
Akinoor
Wed Mar 10, 2004 7:39 am
#1
DocSavag wrote:
BoberFett wrote:
The reason they're doing this is not to make life difficult for crafters, but to bring database storage requirements down. They've talked about lowering the vendor item limit to 150. Any lower than that and there'd be suicide bombings by disgruntled customers at SOE headquarters. So they lower the the vendor limit cap to 150 and what would people who use vendors do? By 150 backpacks and store not 150 items but 7500 items. So rather than having some guts and pulling the vendors that non-merchants shouldn't have, they're screwing real merchants up the Used Food Return.
They changed their mind about it already andit wasn't vendor storage at all but CS complaints about people getting ripped off buying backpacks.
As someone who just lost one pack full of goods worth 2 millions from a vendor and not getting reimbursement because they don't have any tools to check the content of the pack, I can think of another reason too.
DocSavag
Wed Mar 10, 2004 7:56 am
#2
Akinoor wrote:
As someone who just lost one pack full of goods worth 2 millions from a vendor and not getting reimbursement because they don't have any tools to check the content of the pack, I can think of another reason too.
I think it is another example of the same issue, namely that the vendor database doesn't have data about the contents of a container. If they fix it so you can see the contents on the vendor then they will most likely have created the data they need to track the contents for reimbursement as well but it is a good call to mention that because it might not occur to them to include that in their plans to fix this issue.
Akinoor
Wed Mar 10, 2004 9:04 am
#3
DocSavag wrote:
Akinoor wrote:
As someone who just lost one pack full of goods worth 2 millions from a vendor and not getting reimbursement because they don't have any tools to check the content of the pack, I can think of another reason too.
I think it is another example of the same issue, namely that the vendor database doesn't have data about the contents of a container. If they fix it so you can see the contents on the vendor then they will most likely have created the data they need to track the contents for reimbursement as well but it is a good call to mention that because it might not occur to them to include that in their plans to fix this issue.
That's a very a good idea. Btw, do you know how big has the problems with fake named packs have been? It seems to me to be a problem that would solve itself pretty much.
DocSavag
Wed Mar 10, 2004 9:14 am
#4
Akinoor wrote:
That's a very a good idea. Btw, do you know how big has the problems with fake named packs have been? It seems to me to be a problem that would solve itself pretty much.
I don't know really I can only assume that it is farily big issue for CS or the code wouldn't have been considered in the first place.
Page 1 of 1