Merchant Archive
Thread: Are merchants ready to absorb hundreds of thousands of items?
Page 1 of 1
Mkappus
Tue Aug 10, 2004 8:27 am
#1
All,
My biggest problem with these 2 changes is having both of them occur at the same time.
Change #1 will dramatically reduce the number of vendors out there. I think all merchants agree this is a good thing. Get rid of the empties or junk ones with little to nothing on it. Get rid of the poached/exploit vendors, all of the clutter and leave the real ones. However, I think this will reduce the number of vendors by roughly 50%. Some of the vendors are from people that run businesses, mostly resource hounds, but I am sure some crafters too. There will be hundreds of thousands of items that will need to be re-listed through a merchant or destroyed.
Change #2 will affect our ability to absorb all the displaced goods. Many of us may already be near the cap, and we won't be able to take on additional stock.
I think they need to look at a phased approach. Phase 1 elimante poached vendors. Phase 2 implement item caps. I think doing both at the same time will lead to the deletion of hundreds of thousands of items per server, and really really piss off a lot of people.
Think about the scope of things, I don't think this is an unreasonable hypothetical situation:
current 5,000 vendors with an average of 100 items each, 500,000 items. After the nerf a total maximum possibile number of vendors 2,500 (yes people can re-add the skill, but it will take time for them to level up and get more vendors/items). Say they increase the cap from 660 to 1000 (160ish per vendor) that is just over 400,000 items. Close to 100,000 items will have to be removed from sale. I think things could be worse, what if the vendors lost is 70%, we only have 1500 vendos available with a max of roughyl 250,000 items. Half of the items for sale currently may be taken out of the market.
DocSavag
Tue Aug 10, 2004 8:35 am
#2
FWIW my proposal months ago was
1. Remove Vendors Owned by people without the skills to manage them.
2. Give Merchants additional tools to act as retailers
3. Item limits if you MUST have them.
1. Remove Vendors Owned by people without the skills to manage them.
2. Give Merchants additional tools to act as retailers
3. Item limits if you MUST have them.
Crimsonsplat
Tue Aug 10, 2004 8:44 am
#3
DocSavag wrote:
FWIW my proposal months ago was
1. Remove Vendors Owned by people without the skills to manage them.
2. Give Merchants additional tools to act as retailers
3. Item limits if you MUST have them.
They must provide those additional tools (i.e.: consignment) if they expect to have a game by the time JTL comes out. No way I'm going to trust someone to pay me when an item sells. That's already been noted by many--but if I were a merchant, no way I'd want to try to track which of three or four crafters that I might be dealing with, owned what item that sold that day (and therefore, how much I owed them), by reading a few dozen emails. Instead of, say, using a tool expressly designed to give me a summary of the activity, while automatically forwarding their funds. No one seems to have addressed that side of the coin.
The simple fact that devs have never addressed that question from the get-go, let alone during the current contremps is more proof that the devs may play the game, but they do so only for a few hours a week, and all of them are Jedi.
rexan
Tue Aug 10, 2004 8:53 am
#4
Crimsonsplat wrote:
DocSavag wrote:
FWIW my proposal months ago was
1. Remove Vendors Owned by people without the skills to manage them.
2. Give Merchants additional tools to act as retailers
3. Item limits if you MUST have them.
They must provide those additional tools (i.e.: consignment) if they expect to have a game by the time JTL comes out. No way I'm going to trust someone to pay me when an item sells. That's already been noted by many--but if I were a merchant, no way I'd want to try to track which of three or four crafters that I might be dealing with, owned what item that sold that day (and therefore, how much I owed them), by reading a few dozen emails. Instead of, say, using a tool expressly designed to give me a summary of the activity, while automatically forwarding their funds. No one seems to have addressed that side of the coin.
The simple fact that devs have never addressed that question from the get-go, let alone during the current contremps is more proof that the devs may play the game, but they do so only for a few hours a week, and all of them are Jedi.
I totally agree here. Re-selling is not very risky for stuff you know will sell. ie. Laser Rifles, Stim-b. However this completely changes for loot items.
This is something I would never even consider re-selling. Face it, many combat classes have a Art3 vendor specifically to sell their looted items. And often times they are charginghuge amounts of money on them. I'm not going to be buying skill tapes from someone at 100k to 1mill a pop in the hopes that I can re-sell them.
Consignment sales are absolutely necessary in this respect. Where the combat based player can post them on our vendor at whatever price he thinks they will sell at. Then when the item does sell, we take a percentage(pre-determined on a per partner basis) of the sale.
Iseabeil
Tue Aug 10, 2004 9:31 am
#5
Crimsonsplat wrote:
DocSavag wrote:
FWIW my proposal months ago was
1. Remove Vendors Owned by people without the skills to manage them.
2. Give Merchants additional tools to act as retailers
3. Item limits if you MUST have them.
They must provide those additional tools (i.e.: consignment) if they expect to have a game by the time JTL comes out. No way I'm going to trust someone to pay me when an item sells. That's already been noted by many--but if I were a merchant, no way I'd want to try to track which of three or four crafters that I might be dealing with, owned what item that sold that day (and therefore, how much I owed them), by reading a few dozen emails. Instead of, say, using a tool expressly designed to give me a summary of the activity, while automatically forwarding their funds. No one seems to have addressed that side of the coin.
The simple fact that devs have never addressed that question from the get-go, let alone during the current contremps is more proof that the devs may play the game, but they do so only for a few hours a week, and all of them are Jedi.
It would have been great, if they didnt want so low cap. Me and my b/f covers 6 crafting professions, theres no way id sacrifice my precious space on some stranger, no matter how badly he might need it. we will need all of it ourselves, and i think many will be in same situation.
joined42904
Tue Aug 10, 2004 9:37 am
#6
If you don't like the result and you see it as inevitable...
Delay, delay, delay..... and delay some more.
That seems like the point of this post.
I think the vendor item cap needs to go into effect at the same time as the other changes. So that folks don't have time to arrange cross-server lot trades before the changes go into effect. I hope they plan to deal with cross-lotting in this patch as well. Because if they don't we're going to see lots of new houses spring up all over the countryside as people try to save their precious items.
We players are pack rats. These items aren't going to be absorbed by merchants. And they shouldn't be. Some of these items really, really need to be deleted. Yes. I said it. Deleted.
Page 1 of 1