New Vendors

24567

Comments

  • CovenantXCovenantX Posts: 474
    inb4 the new vendor is from the UO store. 
    Remove or change casting focus & poison immunity it reduces the need for "Player Skill" it's garbage. rant2 Bring timing back and eliminate chance in pvp!
    ICQ# 478 633 659
  • If they put vendors in the uo store for money would that be worth it? Say 1-3$ per vendor? That way there would be cash flow and then the fee after would be 5-10% of the total sale? Just thinking outside the box here.
  • MervynMervyn Posts: 2,208
    Also, due to everyone putting their worthless trash on vendors (for ridiculous prices), this new vendor will probably result in vendor search either going down all the time, and/or taking about 20 mins. Then you'll all be crying on the forums again.
    I tell you the truth, tis better to do 10 damage on the right target than 100 damage on the wrong target.

    Breaking in the young since 2002


  • CinderellaCinderella Posts: 1,432
    edited October 2018
    So this new vendor, taking up storage space... if same as a steward deed
    no matter how much is in their inventory... it uses 125 storage

    an 18x18 with max storage, has 66 vendor slots available 
    max house storage is 3899, which means only 31 vendors of this type could be placed with only 24 items in the house


    there is also a weight limit of what can go onto a vendor, unless every item weighs one stone, you wont be able to have a full vendor
  • SlissSliss Posts: 275
    Skett said:

    or or they could just simply adjust the current vendor cost back to a more reasonable level and save a lot of time and everyone would happy if it’s changed back to original. Nahhhh that’s to simple lol we hate simple..........
    This would not solve the problem of less populated shards where an item may sit on a vendor for months due to low demand.
  • SlissSliss Posts: 275
    Mervyn said:
    I think something may have been overlooked. You may find it goes from one extreme to another. You may find people putting all their trash on vendors at ridiculous prices just because there’s no fee until sale. And then you will all complain when you can’t see the wood for the trees. 

    We are currently quite selective over the quality and price of items, the markets self regulate. With this proposed new vendor I can see myself dumping my legendaries in the vendor instead of melting them for relics.

    I do understand the issue with the current vendor system, however I’m not absolutely convinced this is the answer. I think there also needs to be a fraction daily fee, sorry. 

    Also, 2 different vendor types is very unnecessarily complicated.
    The markets will self regulate and people will stop putting trash on vendors at ridiculous prices, when they realize it's a waste of their time. A fee per sale system is present in pretty much every MMO out there other than UO. And it works just fine without major problems.
  • SkettSkett Posts: 429
    edited October 2018
    I agree with the “trash on the vendors” will self regulate and don’t forget “one mans trash is anthers treasure” 

    the biggest question then is what is the Fee going to be and what is the cost of the new vendor deed 
  • cobbcobb Posts: 163
    yes I think its too early to jump to conclusions without even knowing what the fee is going to be.
  • TimTim Posts: 686
    Two types of vendors would be an great idea. The classic fee based we have now for high volume (guild type stuff) in vendor houses and a new storage cost type for slow moving stuff. 

    I have a couple of boxes of stuff I would like to put on a vendor as a community service. It's stuff I don't need but I can see that someone else might want or need some day. I don't do it now because I would be paying more in fees then a fair price would be by the time they sold. But I would be willing to give up some oh so precious storage slots to do it.

    As for the argument against that they would just fill up with junk.  At one time or another I've had every size house in the game and only one thing was constant THERE IS NEVER ENOUGH STORAGE. With a choice of keeping some junk I've already decided I don't want on a vendor or god help me sorting and getting rid of my stuff I know what I'm doing.

    The idea is good enough to wait and see what the details are be for deciding.
  • MervynMervyn Posts: 2,208
    People won't waste their time putting trash on vendors? Without a vendor daily fee, you will put something on a vendor instead of a chest, it's just as easy, and then just forget about it. There will be no self regulation at all.
    I tell you the truth, tis better to do 10 damage on the right target than 100 damage on the wrong target.

    Breaking in the young since 2002


  • BilboBilbo Posts: 2,834
    edited October 2018
    I hate to say this but I have to agree with @Mervyn He does have a point in that if these vendors do not take up any storage then people will just place chests of junk on them for 175M so no one buys them.  Without some sort of daily fee they will be storage bins.
  • cobbcobb Posts: 163
    maybe for the new style of vendors, they should change it so that it does take up storage space.
  • I thought they WERE gonna take up storage space?  Wasn't the the trade-off for using them?

  • GraceGrace Posts: 144
    Can see how hording could become an issue. How about make it so the vendors that only charge commission count towards storage space double. So you set down a commission only vendor and it immediately takes up 125 lock downs.

    As items are added to it, it gets more lock downs added to the house. Thus having such a vendor 
    like this with 125 items in it, would be 250 towards the house. 

    Also, each house can only have one of these types of vendors.

    I believe some people hoard stuff because they don't want to sell it way cheap, but they can't
    afford to let it sit on a vendor.

    Stuff that you, yourself, can set a price on and think "I kinda like this, but could part with it for the right price."  

    I am one of those folks who can't afford a vendor to let decent items collect dust on. 
  • MervynMervyn Posts: 2,208
    Ah Yes i concede storage space would somewhat control the amount of trash people put on vendors.
    I tell you the truth, tis better to do 10 damage on the right target than 100 damage on the wrong target.

    Breaking in the young since 2002


  • FortisFortis Posts: 357
    fee should be 25% of the sale price minimum.... this game need gold sink
    sadly but true... i pay mils in commission each day and i still make money... If you dont want to pay a commission for high products sells them on general chat at right price they go fast.
  • SkettSkett Posts: 429
    edited October 2018
    How about a scaling fee any thing 1 mil and under 10% 1 mil to 25 mil 15% 25mil to 50 mil 20% 50 mil plus 25% 100mil and above 35% cap 

    and if an item sits on a vendor for more than 45 days it gets hit with the percentage fee and will again in anther 45 days this will stop people from just storing “junk” on them so can we now stop with the lame storage idea already 

    okay I just tossed those numbers out there with out much thought to make a point (kinda of like everything I post) 
  • DrowyDrowy Posts: 107
    Skett said:
    and if an item sits on a vendor for more than 45 days it gets hit with the percentage fee and will again in anther 45 days this will stop people from just storing “junk” on them so can we now stop with the lame storage idea already
    Please no, this would hurt low populated shards. And with the vendor items taking storage space this is not needed anyways. For me a reasonable fee would be 5-10%
  • TimTim Posts: 686
    You still haven't shown how a vendor storing junk hurts you any more then all the empty vendors. Why would anyone go to the effort of getting a vendor and storing things there rather than a box?

    The idea about a percentage/time fee would just defeat the whole purpose of the idea. And it sound a lot like existing businesses trying to keep out new competition.
      
  • SlissSliss Posts: 275
    Fortis said:
    fee should be 25% of the sale price minimum.... this game need gold sink
    sadly but true... i pay mils in commission each day and i still make money... If you dont want to pay a commission for high products sells them on general chat at right price they go fast.
    Please try to make millions in commission every day and still make money on a less populated shard.
  • SlissSliss Posts: 275
    Skett said:
    How about a scaling fee any thing 1 mil and under 10% 1 mil to 25 mil 15% 25mil to 50 mil 20% 50 mil plus 25% 100mil and above 35% cap 

    and if an item sits on a vendor for more than 45 days it gets hit with the percentage fee and will again in anther 45 days this will stop people from just storing “junk” on them so can we now stop with the lame storage idea already 

    okay I just tossed those numbers out there with out much thought to make a point (kinda of like everything I post) 
    Since these vendors will take house storage space, "storing junk" is a non issue. At the same time, putting a 20%+ tax on these will end up like way too many "improvements" in UO = tons of coding hours spent on a feature that nobody uses.
  • SkettSkett Posts: 429
    I don’t feel the new vendors should take up house storage I feel that’s a bad idea. 

    The numbers where here just thrown out there make up your own 5% 10% 15% idk it was to show a more balanced way of a fee 

    example I’m selling black rock stew $5k each I do t want to get hit with a 30% fee I wouldn’t even bother making them for other players if the fee was on,y 5% then it makes since. Blackrock stew sits for months and months sometimes and other times it sells quickly, that’s why I would use this type of vendor. 

    Or or if I have a tangle and want to sell it on a low population shard for $15 mil I would have to pay a 10% fee 

    once again I haven’t ran the numbers I could be way off maybe it should only be 1% and 5% 

    but the housing storage idea is very lazy and stupid one, you will be getting hit with a fee as it is,  why are some people so obsessed with punishing others yet complain about low population shards not having vendors think about it ? If it cost me more to sell an item than what I’m making I’m not going to sell it, if I put 30 blackrock stew on my vendor but it takes up house space I’m not going to make it to sell. 

    (Not sure why I picked blackrock) 
  • TimTim Posts: 686
    Ok I think we have wandered off what the original idea was. (check out the original post) 

    A second type of vendor. Not replacing existing the vendor. The new one would take up house storage rather then a regular gold charge. You choose which one you use.

    The talk about fees and commissions is more about changing the existing vendors rates then about a new one. Not to say that may not be needed but that's not what was proposed. 

    ps "Also, 2 different vendor types is very unnecessarily complicated" your going to have to explain that one or are you just trolling again. 

    Who ever is setting up the vendor picks one, other players should see no difference between the 3 types. (new, standard & rental)  The programers say no problem so how is it complicated?
  • SlissSliss Posts: 275
    Skett said:
    I don’t feel the new vendors should take up house storage I feel that’s a bad idea. 

    Why? That is one way to alleviate your concern about people using vendors as storage, while addressing my concern of stifling commerce with unreasonable fees.
  • Sliss said:
    Skett said:
    I don’t feel the new vendors should take up house storage I feel that’s a bad idea. 

    Why? That is one way to alleviate your concern about people using vendors as storage, while addressing my concern of stifling commerce with unreasonable fees.
    If you don't want a vendor to take up house storage, you can still use the current vendor. The new vendor is an option for those of us who don't have the gold to pay the current fees.
  • SkettSkett Posts: 429
    Sliss said:
    Skett said:
    I don’t feel the new vendors should take up house storage I feel that’s a bad idea. 

    Why? That is one way to alleviate your concern about people using vendors as storage, while addressing my concern of stifling commerce with unreasonable fees.
    I think you misunderstood me I could careless about people using them as storage.
    others are concerned about it 

    I think they need put the vendors back to how they use to work and quit adding more and more unnecessary bs in this game and spend more time making it fun if they can 
  • DrowyDrowy Posts: 107
    The new vendors would be more fun for low populated shards. Sellers can put more items on their vendors without losing money and buyers would have more items to buy.
  • AaylaAayla Posts: 170
    Mervyn said:
    I think something may have been overlooked. You may find it goes from one extreme to another. You may find people putting all their trash on vendors at ridiculous prices just because there’s no fee until sale. And then you will all complain when you can’t see the wood for the trees. 

    We are currently quite selective over the quality and price of items, the markets self regulate. With this proposed new vendor I can see myself dumping my legendaries in the vendor instead of melting them for relics.

    I do understand the issue with the current vendor system, however I’m not absolutely convinced this is the answer. I think there also needs to be a fraction daily fee, sorry. 

    Also, 2 different vendor types is very unnecessarily complicated. 


    Totally agree!
  • TimTim Posts: 686
    Sorry but I've gone through this thread three times and still not sure.

    Even if your worse case comes about how would the original idea (a vendor using house storage rather than daily fee) negatively affect your game play?

    I admit there is no shortage of crazy people out there but why would anyone use a vendor that costs $$$ (gold sinks being in I don't expect them to be cheep) to set up rather then a free box or bag?
  • Four months later, hoping for an update and introduction into the game soon.
This discussion has been closed.