Player Associations Archive
Thread: Vendor sales to guild a simpler approach
"Allow vendors in private structures, or allow Guild:ABBREV to make private vendors or targeted vendor sales."
While I see that as a positive if done, in practice there is perhaps an easier solution. Quite frequently within my guild there have been times when a crafter has wanted to sell things on a vendor but not charge as much to guild members. Usually, that has translated to bank tipping back a portion of the purchase price whenever a guild member buys something. Is this just us or is this a very common approach to the problem? Why not implement a built-in system to support this - specifically allow merchants to specify a discount percentage for guild members? Let it range between 1% and 100% discount set by the merchant and you pretty much cover the bulk of player association related uses you might want to employ a vendor for. Best part - since they implemented sales tax as a percentage modifier on vendor sales the code to accomplish this is clearly already a known factor so this should be a VERY EASY change to implement. And if some industrious dev wanted to REALLY KNOCK IT OUT OF THE PARK, they could implement a list system that worked similar to the admin list on a house, allowing you to specify different discounts for individuals or guilds (using the GUILD:somename approach just like houses) - a big dream I know and more work for sure but I do believe I would be so happy I would loose continence if I saw THAT on the patch notes one morning.
(oh, and I really was just dreaming with the discount-by-person list - have NO hope of seeing that happen and would be very happy with a "guild discount" even if nothing else)
CaseytheHutt wrote:
Exactly. And I would love a fixed discount as well, but just for simplicity a % discount is probably the easiest solution to implement (since they've got the % caculations in for sales tax anyway).
(oh, and I really was just dreaming with the discount-by-person list - have NO hope of seeing that happen and would be very happy with a "guild discount" even if nothing else)
Agreed, the percentage based would be the quickest method to impliment it by far. My exact amount would be alone the lines of your discount by person, a hopeful idea yet one I'm very willing to voice.
Rothin wrote:
Something like this probably would be far easier to implement than allowing vendors into private structures ... <snip>
I don't see how implementing something new (even if the code, in theory, exists in another related system) could be easier than reverting the private structure/vendor change.
If we used to be able to put them in private structures, and a software update changed that, it would seem pretty simple to just revert whatever change was implemented at that time. Since it's a structure issue and not a vendor issue, it would seem to me that there's something in the structure permissions that checks the privacy flag before allowing the vendor creation subroutine to start up.
For most guilds, the private structures already exist, ie guild hall. With the increased vendor limits, it would seem easier for most people to create a new vendor and place in an existing strucutre. There are good points and bad points to having a guild:name discount modifier, but in the end, reverting a change is far simplier as opposed to creating something new.
regards
P
Privateer21 wrote:
Rothin wrote:
Something like this probably would be far easier to implement than allowing vendors into private structures ...
I don't see how implementing something new (even if the code, in theory, exists in another related system) could be easier than reverting the private structure/vendor change.
If we used to be able to put them in private structures, and a software update changed that, it would seem pretty simple to just revert whatever change was implemented at that time. Since it's a structure issue and not a vendor issue, it would seem to me that there's something in the structure permissions that checks the privacy flag before allowing the vendor creation subroutine to start up.
For most guilds, the private structures already exist, ie guild hall. With the increased vendor limits, it would seem easier for most people to create a new vendor and place in an existing strucutre. There are good points and bad points to having a guild:name discount modifier, but in the end, reverting a change is far simplier as opposed to creating something new.
regards
P
While reverting is easier, I believe it would be easier for us to get the devs to consider adding a new way of dong vendors for guilds than it would be to have them revert it so that anyone can have a vendor in a private house.
If that change was revert, everyone would suddenly have access to extra storage and half the game would take advantage of it most likely and then it would get changed back. Remember, if someone can use a system to their advantage, they will. That's why we've always taken the guild vendor approach over trying to get that change reverted.
Rothin wrote:
While reverting is easier, I believe it would be easier for us to get the devs to consider adding a new way of dong vendors for guilds than it would be to have them revert it so that anyone can have a vendor in a private house.
If that change was revert, everyone would suddenly have access to extra storage and half the game would take advantage of it most likely and then it would get changed back. Remember, if someone can use a system to their advantage, they will. That's why we've always taken the guild vendor approach over trying to get that change reverted.
CaseytheHutt wrote:
The thing is, the "vendors in private structures" nerf is something the devs did INTENTIONALLY because they thought it was bad. Trying to get them to reverse that is an uphill battle. However, discounts is an easy to implement idea that avoids the reasons they didn't like vendors in private structures (though they might be inclined to not make the range quite so wide as I suggested - I always ask for a little more than I need so there's room to negotiate).
So instead of allowing anyone to do it, how about tying it as a master merchant modifier; ie, Added skill - Vendors in private buildings. Again, this benefits both sides. It helps give a reason to master merchant, and also helps PA's.
And Casey, I totally agree with the issue of changing their mind. But the only reason it was removed originally was because of the vendor xp exploit. That is, for those who weren't around, put a vendor in a private building, then let it rack up xp. Once they changed the way vendor/merchant XP was gained to only accumulate when the vendor is accessed, this exploit became a non-issue. With the reason for the original change gone, it only makes sense to revert the loss in functionality the 'nerf' caused.
regards
P
On the first - the solution of blocking them outright was just a typical SOE laziness solution. Instead of coming up with an actual solution you just nerf the problem out of existance.
On the second - the solution of discount %% is essentially a practical compromise. It still allows the merchant to somewhat limit trade, but not to nearly so great a level as vendors in private structures would. That is also why I say they might not go for the wide range of discounts I initially suggested - too great a discount would let you price objects out of reasonable purchase range for "non-members" thereby reachieving the private structure lockout effect.