Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In

Categories

New Vendors

12357

Comments

  • TimTim Posts: 826
    Tim said:
    What you want us to use math in a totally off topic and meaningless debate?
    Sorry that was flippant and rude. When this started I was on my phone in the mall waiting for the wife so 25% was an easy number to use.
    But do you really don't think taxes on things you buy don't add up to at least 25%? (stores business tax, store owner's income tax, same for the supplier and his supplier etc. for one example) 
  • FenriswolfFenriswolf Posts: 113
    edited May 2019
    Tim said:
    Tim said:
    What you want us to use math in a totally off topic and meaningless debate?

    Sorry that was flippant and rude. When this started I was on my phone in the mall waiting for the wife so 25% was an easy number to use. 
    But do you really don't think taxes on things you buy don't add up to at least 25%? (stores business tax, store owner's income tax, same for the supplier and his supplier etc. for one example) 


    If the vendor is in your house though, you are paying all of this not the vendor selling your stock. The vendor is an employee, hence how you can simply remove all your stuff and "sack" them. I dont think they should be paid anymore than flat fee per week regardless of what they have on them. The fee should not be tied to the value of the items on the vendor as the vendor doesnt own the items, you do. 

    Vendor search would be a lot more useful if opened up to move vendors. I dont understand the ridiculous farce around the fees, its over-complicated.

    Keep the fact they take up storage, i can understand that, its logical, the fees arent
  • BilboBilbo Posts: 2,834
    Nice idea @Fenriswolf pay the vendor a flat daily rate no matter what is on it and have it count against the house storage or people will just use them for extra storage.  No this would not be a great gold sink but it would help the lower populated shards with their vendor problem.  The question would be what people would consider a reasonable daily salary and if some tries to beat the game like the old vendors then make these vendors cost more gold than they save when they dismiss them and have them go poof so they have to buy a new vendor deed every time.
  • TimTim Posts: 826
    First the previous posts as I pointed out were way way off in the weeds. (real world)

    But back to topic I'm against a weekly fee of any type. If items on a vendor count towards the house storage why would anyone use them for storage? There would be no extra storage to gain unlike the present vendors. And if they did go to all that effort how would that affect your game experience?
  • BilboBilbo Posts: 2,834
    Do you even understand anything you read.
    Bilbo said:
    Nice idea @ Fenriswolf pay the vendor a flat daily rate no matter what is on it and have it count against the house storage or people will just use them for extra storage.
    What do you think this says.
  • FenriswolfFenriswolf Posts: 113
    it really is as simple as :

    1. A flat nominal fee for the vendor either per day or per week doesn't matter.It is just too high at it currently stands.Or a 100k gold fee to buy initially to stop them being put up and knocked down frequently
    2. Yes the items on the vendor count as storage

    Thats it, nothing more, lets not muddy the water with anything else it is this, plain and simple. Lets not go round in circles or discuss anything more. There isnt anything more to it
  • Maximus_NeximusMaximus_Neximus Posts: 380
    Tim said:
    Tim said:
    What you want us to use math in a totally off topic and meaningless debate?
    Sorry that was flippant and rude. When this started I was on my phone in the mall waiting for the wife so 25% was an easy number to use.
    But do you really don't think taxes on things you buy don't add up to at least 25%? (stores business tax, store owner's income tax, same for the supplier and his supplier etc. for one example) 
    I understand it makes for easier math in a discussion, although 10% may be easier. But I don’t want the devs thinking that we’d be ok with such a high percentage with the final product. 
  • TimTim Posts: 826
    Ok I did miss the "or" I still don't see a need for any setup or weekly fee other then buying the vendor deed at the present rate. If someone does put up and knock them down frequently what's the harm?
  • BilboBilbo Posts: 2,834
    Fenriswolf said:
    it really is as simple as :

    1. A flat nominal fee for the vendor either per day or per week doesn't matter.It is just too high at it currently stands.Or a 100k gold fee to buy initially to stop them being put up and knocked down frequently
    2. Yes the items on the vendor count as storage

    Thats it, nothing more, lets not muddy the water with anything else it is this, plain and simple. Lets not go round in circles or discuss anything more. There isnt anything more to it
    THIS  Simple and it works
  • TimTim Posts: 826
    Bilbo said:
    Fenriswolf said:
    it really is as simple as :

    1. A flat nominal fee for the vendor either per day or per week doesn't matter.It is just too high at it currently stands.Or a 100k gold fee to buy initially to stop them being put up and knocked down frequently
    2. Yes the items on the vendor count as storage

    Thats it, nothing more, lets not muddy the water with anything else it is this, plain and simple. Lets not go round in circles or discuss anything more. There isnt anything more to it
    THIS  Simple and it works
    Its even simpler and still works without item 1
  • FenriswolfFenriswolf Posts: 113
    Tim said:
    Bilbo said:
    Fenriswolf said:
    it really is as simple as :

    1. A flat nominal fee for the vendor either per day or per week doesn't matter.It is just too high at it currently stands.Or a 100k gold fee to buy initially to stop them being put up and knocked down frequently
    2. Yes the items on the vendor count as storage

    Thats it, nothing more, lets not muddy the water with anything else it is this, plain and simple. Lets not go round in circles or discuss anything more. There isnt anything more to it
    THIS  Simple and it works
    Its even simpler and still works without item 1
    True, but for a bit of realism we need to pay the vendor something, or why the hell would they be doing it. May as well not have vendors just have an automated item dispenser like those coke/crisp machines that you pay for the item and it drops out the bottom :-)
  • BilboBilbo Posts: 2,834
    Tim said:
    Ok I did miss the "or" I still don't see a need for any setup or weekly fee other then buying the vendor deed at the present rate. If someone does put up and knock them down frequently what's the harm?
    People use to knock their vendors down before server maint. and then put them back up after server maint to avoid paying the daily charge that was collected at server up only, that is why the vendor fee is taken out during the day not at server up only.  To avoid paying a set daily/weakly/monthly fee is the harm and why not charge a minimal fee as a small gold sink just like the current vendors are used as a gold sink but as these are using house storage the a nominal fee or as stated above a one time cost of 100K/uses house storage would also be good.  Either one still helps the lower populated shards to have affordable vendors.
  • TimTim Posts: 826
    I think we all are forgetting the ?% fee when something is sold. To you a 100k might be a small fee but to others it isn't. I think the fee at time of sale would be enough of a gold sink with out deterring people from setting up vendors.
  • FenriswolfFenriswolf Posts: 113
    edited May 2019
    lordy we have entered a never ending cycle...

    1. 100k fee (as example - doesnt have to be 100k) to buy the vendor, end of, no more fees OR
    2. Flat fee per day or per week, something pathetically small e.g 100 gold

    The main point is that the FEE is the issue, however the fee is reduced is fine, but it needs to be reduced to make vendors viable

    Us arguing about what and how the fee is applied is pedantic and uphelpful

    lets just agree the current FEE is too large and it should be a lot smaller and leave it there?
  • Uriah_HeepUriah_Heep Posts: 915
    If the fee is too high, or it counts against lockdowns, or the vendor costs $$ to get instead of gold, it's dead out of the starting gate and no use coding it.  
  • BilboBilbo Posts: 2,834
    Uriah_Heep said:
    If the fee is too high, or it counts against lockdowns, or the vendor costs $$ to get instead of gold, it's dead out of the starting gate and no use coding it.  
    Would you pay a one time cost of 100K gold and have the vendor count as house storage?
  • TimTim Posts: 826
    As I under stand it the proposal that Broadsword said they liked and would implement in some form was
    1. Replace the weekly fee with house lockdowns
    2. Charge the gold sink when item sold as it is now
    3. Too Be Decided by them
    Until they say what they are planing we are just talking and killing time.  :)

    sorry if anyone was taking it too serious.
  • BilboBilbo Posts: 2,834
    Tim said:
    As I under stand it the proposal that Broadsword said they liked and would implement in some form was
    1. Replace the weekly fee with house lockdowns
    2. Charge the gold sink when item sold as it is now
    3. Too Be Decided by them
    Until they say what they are planing we are just talking and killing time.  :)

    sorry if anyone was taking it too serious.
     ;) 
  • FaerylFaeryl Posts: 273
    edited May 2019
    I'm not really understanding what issue people have with the vendor taking a small percentage of an item sold at the time of sale. It's called being paid by commission. 

    You know, sell an item, get paid a percentage of the sale?

    The whole argument that those buying the items are the ones being taxed makes no sense to me. People will charge what they want to get the gold they want. No one is forcing anyone to buy items at higher prices.

    Honestly, I think the commission idea would work fine for smaller shards.

    As for people using vendors for storage... the main issue there is that it was ever allowed for BoDs (not the books, but the deeds themselves within the books) to be set to not for sale. If a deed is put on a vendor, in a book or not, it should have to have a price on it. That would help curb storage vendors. Plus, haven't they changed the way BoD books hold deeds? Vendors shouldn't be necessary to store deeds anymore. (I haven't done many in the last several years, so I'm not sure without looking it up.)
  • FenriswolfFenriswolf Posts: 113
    Tim said:

    Until they say what they are planing we are just talking and killing time.  :)

    Yup, Moderator please close this to save our breath :-)

  • TimTim Posts: 826
    edited May 2019
    I do hate the way this thing does quotes. I didn't say close this. If I didn't want to talk and kill time I wouldn't be here.  :) 

    You should not be able to edit or accidentally add you own comments to quotes. (anyone want to talk about that for a wile and see just how far into the weeds we can go?  >:) )
  • FenriswolfFenriswolf Posts: 113
    hahah was going to quote again but i resisted
  • CookieCookie Posts: 1,683
    edited May 2019

    I think the fee is an issue, it prevents players putting up lower end items, that players would still want, as the fees knock out the point of putting them up. It's the lack of these basic items, that hurt the economy, and make a shard go dead/look dead in terms of trading, and ability to get the basics. That then slows things down so much, the higher end items then take ages to sell, which attracts high fees, to the point it becomes pointless putting them up, so eventually nothing goes up, and everyone saves them to take to Atlantic. I think getting rid of Vendor Fee's could break that cycle and bring back the economy on all shards, and Felucca.

    If you must have Fee's...Maybe any item with a value under 5m should not have a fee attached, then over that, you add in a percentage fee - a bit like a real tax system. Use a simple banding system so the "Poor" are not affected relatively more than the rich.

    I'd prefer no fee to be honest.

    So I am completely behind a 2nd Vendor system that runs in tandem with the Main system, that has no Fee's, and uses house storage space. Any other suggestion is just diluting this whole concept to the point of making it worthless - why do players and developers keep on feeling they have to do this in this game? Everyone keeps designing systems that are 1 step forwards, 2 steps backwards, because they feel there has to be an inbuilt "punishment"?! Why not just go with having fun, keeping it simple and uncomplicated?

  • Ezekiel_ZaneEzekiel_Zane Posts: 326
    edited May 2019

    This is a game.  A game which we actually pay for with real cash in the real world in order to play.  Well, I guess EJ changed that a bit.  Anyway, it's a game.  Why must there be TAXES and/or FEES in my favorite game?  If I WANT to pay sales tax I'll give my debit card to my wife.  She'll find plenty of sales tax to pay.

    Just make two vendor types. 

    One, like we have currently that charges an hourly/daily fee but does not count against house storage. 

    A second option that doesn't charge any fee(s) but DOES count against house storage.
  • TimTim Posts: 826
    Once again we had wandered off into the weed and the talk of taxes etc was way off topic. (Real world) I think swerving all the way to international tax policy should get us a reward oh some type  >:)
  • KirthagKirthag Posts: 541
    o.o

    We already have two types of player vendors:
    House Vendors (what is looking at being changed)
    Marketplace Vendors (New Mag vendors that mostly sell pets, but also do resources)

    Having yet another vendor type is a bit much I think. Don't make an already complicated game more... complicated.

    A vendor that charges commission upon sale, and takes up housing storage is the best option and value for the community if my opinion counts.

    Lets say I get some rare drop and put it on display. That takes a storage spot. I later decide I don't want it, put it on a vendor, set a price, and go about my merry way. No fees are charged until someone buys it (the commission). But if I set that price too high, well of course it won't sell - and takes up my storage. I get another rare drop, and want to display it. In order to have space in my house for display, I need to get rid of _something_... so I drop the price on that item on the vendor to something the market can withstand. It is finally bought, and I get my house storage back. 

    Is like running a store - you have inventory that takes up space until it sells. You want to move your inventory, so you drop prices or trash the item. Is basic retail and makes sense. Too many systems in the game makes for too much confusion. So the "bulk item" vendors who sell resources will be hurt - and I feel that cos I sell imbuing resources - Perhaps we need more of those New Mag type of vendors in other public areas? I al ways thought a market place in Brit would be good. Even in Yew near the new dock. 

    And for the Mall Houses (Luna), then the commission should be a bit higher (vendor commission + house owner commission) and be a part of the Rental Contract Agreement between the vendor operator and the house owner. 

    The hourly/daily charge on the vendor is like a wage, but without taking up inventory space does make for packed vendors and no real merchandising of the goods.  I think the commission model would be a more manageable system for the devs and players alike. This is something I would like to test.

    kirthag.blogspot.com
  • TimTim Posts: 826
    I don't think having two types of vendors would cause any problems or confusion. They would cater to different sellers. The present type for hight volume quick turnover, the new for slower moving stuff. The New Magincia vendors shouldn't really be affected other than some competition for the odd player with too much of one resource he wants to get rid of.  

    The existing type of vendor still has a place. I for one would not be renting out a vendor slot if it was giving up control of a portion of my house's lockdowns. Even on the slower Shards a guild mall would quickly run out of storage if they had to count everything on the vendors. 

    And as for being complicated if they did do away with the present vendors how would you deal with all the houses using them for extra storage or the over loaded malls? I can just imagine the screaming if they told them you have until this date to get down to storage limits or lose your stock. If you just "grandfather" them why stop offering new ones?

    The idea of a higher sales tax  commission for the new type to make it competitive with the old is an idea that bears some further thought. It would keep the faster moving stuff on the old style venders. Not sure how I feel about the idea yet but maybe. 
  • AlkaseltzerAlkaseltzer Posts: 43
    I love this idea! Most other MMOs vendors/auctions charge commission not how long item is listed. Although you can usually only list it for a day or two before have to list it again. But, this would be great for me since I have extra storage space to sacrifice and sometimes my stuff sits there for weeks on end without selling. The only thing I'm worried about is this might make prices of all player goods go up to correct for the commision and since I'm not very rich yet, I might not be able to purchase as much stuff from others anymore.
    Don't let heartburn and indigestion keep you from relishing life's special moments. Use Alka-Seltzer for speedy relief when you need it.
  • FaerylFaeryl Posts: 273
    Some people may try to charge more to compensate for the commission, but think about it this way... they could do that, but there will likely still be people who would sell cheaper.

    The way I see it, you can either price something to get a pre-set amount when it eventually sells, or go a bit cheaper, and hopefully sell more of it to compensate for the lower profit per item.
  • TimTim Posts: 826
    Faeryl said:
    Some people may try to charge more to compensate for the commission, but think about it this way... they could do that, but there will likely still be people who would sell cheaper.

    The way I see it, you can either price something to get a pre-set amount when it eventually sells, or go a bit cheaper, and hopefully sell more of it to compensate for the lower profit per item.
    Same could be said without reference to commissions. As a seller you set the price as high as you think it will sell for. If it isn't selling fast enough you lower the price. 

    The proper price for any item is what someone else is willing to pay.  :/
This discussion has been closed.