Howdy, Stranger!

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

Sign In

Categories

New Vendor Cap

VladimirVladimir Posts: 41
in General Discussions
Please remove the vendor cap of 175m.
Nowadays 175m limit is very low, people nowadays have jewels, armor, rares that will sell for way over 200M-500m++
Please @Kyronix, @Mesanna and @Bleak before release the final publish , hear us and remove cap.
  1. Should the New Vendors have a Item Cap?37 votes
    1. Remove current 175M Cap
      48.65%
    2. Keep current 175m Cap
      51.35%

Comments

  • KirthagKirthag Posts: 541
    This will get into the Vendor Search as well, as it is also capped at 175m. 



    kirthag.blogspot.com
  • ArchnightArchnight Posts: 48
    Cap should be atleast 250m, i'd like more but i'm sure there's reasons why it's not.

  • SmootSmoot Posts: 410
    i voted for keep 175m cap, only because we have auction safes.  if there were no cap auctionsafes would be obsolete.

    now if auction safes were updated, so that people actually used them for auctions, then i would be in favor of higher cap.

    as it is now the bidding limitations are not good for the seller. 

    even just being able to set a min bid increase would make them worthwhile, but as it is now the only benefit is being able to put an item on for more than 175m with no vendor fees, just 5 percent commission at buyout.
  • VladimirVladimir Posts: 41
    Agree @Smoot. But i dont thin we will ever have a auction safe search feature, ao why not make the new vendor with no cap
  • Maximus_NeximusMaximus_Neximus Posts: 380
    Smoot said:
    i voted for keep 175m cap, only because we have auction safes.  if there were no cap auctionsafes would be obsolete.

    now if auction safes were updated, so that people actually used them for auctions, then i would be in favor of higher cap.

    as it is now the bidding limitations are not good for the seller. 

    even just being able to set a min bid increase would make them worthwhile, but as it is now the only benefit is being able to put an item on for more than 175m with no vendor fees, just 5 percent commission at buyout.
    But auction safes aren’t available to everyone. The new vendor is. 
  • SlissSliss Posts: 283
    There should be no cap at all. It's not like someone is going to go - "Oh I better sell this 1 plat ring for 175M because there is a limit". Auction safes are not an alternative because they are not searchable. So the cap will merely drive all the expensive sales to chat or forums. This will not only reduce a sizable gold sink, but will also promote RMT.
  • SmootSmoot Posts: 410
    Vladimir said:
    Agree @ Smoot. But i dont thin we will ever have a auction safe search feature, ao why not make the new vendor with no cap
    im probably one of the few that prefers no search.  it takes away from the immersion of the game.
  • SmootSmoot Posts: 410
    edited August 2019

    But auction safes aren’t available to everyone. The new vendor is. 
    if your selling items that are worth more than 175m, pretty sure you can buy a few safes for 10-15m each ;)
  • SlissSliss Posts: 283
    Smoot said:
    Vladimir said:
    Agree @ Smoot. But i dont thin we will ever have a auction safe search feature, ao why not make the new vendor with no cap
    im probably one of the few that prefers no search.  it takes away from the immersion of the game.
    You don't really need to use it if you don't want to. I, on the other hand, hate wasting time sifting through hundreds of items. I do not shop auction safes for this very reason. My play time is valuable to me and I'd rather spend it playing the game.
  • Ezekiel_ZaneEzekiel_Zane Posts: 326
    Smoot said:
    Vladimir said:
    Agree @ Smoot. But i dont thin we will ever have a auction safe search feature, ao why not make the new vendor with no cap
    im probably one of the few that prefers no search.  it takes away from the immersion of the game.

    No vendor search makes Luna pretty much the only viable place for a successful vendor and makes Luna house owners rich for doing nothing but renting out vendor spots.  Luna house owners had a 13 year run and got rich enough.
  • NikardNikard Posts: 164
    Sliss is pretty on-point. I do however think that there should be a curve in vendor fees. 100M+ Items should see a much steeper charge than 5k items.
    -Removes more gold from the game
    -Stops people from charging 5-10x market value on items.
    -Rewards players who spend their valuable time providing the rest of us with consumables, spellbooks, craftables ect.

    I would like to see vendor fees be as low as 1% for low end and 12%-15% at the high end. This will encourage people to move product instead of sitting on items for MONTHS-YEARS waiting for someone to mistakenly click it.
  • SmootSmoot Posts: 410
    edited August 2019
    i guess why i liked no vendor search is because i would find alot better deals.  which would also be good for players without much gold available.

    same goes for auction safes with no search.  you can find alot better deals than with search.

    now with vendor search, people just price 1gp (or another small amount) lower than the next one on search, but still more expensive overall.  basically, most those good deals are gone, or snatched up quickly by re-sellers.


    i get both sides, ive adjusted to search and its very convenient for specific things.  just miss the well established non-luna shops.  theres still some, but not like there used to be.  which were always very successfull. 

    Yes, it takes a little more effort to make your shop, or auction safe house well known and frequented, but i guess i like that aspect of the game.  the player to player interactions part of what makes it an mmorpg rather than just clicking a button.

    i think its a good balance right now.  vendors have search, auction safes do not. 
  • TrismegistosTrismegistos Posts: 197
    *blue skull* for this.
    Use the stuff which is already there.
  • SlissSliss Posts: 283
    Nikard said:
    Sliss is pretty on-point. I do however think that there should be a curve in vendor fees. 100M+ Items should see a much steeper charge than 5k items.
    -Removes more gold from the game
    -Stops people from charging 5-10x market value on items.
    -Rewards players who spend their valuable time providing the rest of us with consumables, spellbooks, craftables ect.

    I would like to see vendor fees be as low as 1% for low end and 12%-15% at the high end. This will encourage people to move product instead of sitting on items for MONTHS-YEARS waiting for someone to mistakenly click it.
    100M+ items already see a steeper charge, because it's a % on the value and not a set fee. If anything, the % should go down with the higher value items. Otherwise you risk driving those transactions to chat and forums, where the transaction is completely free. 
    And those high prices you see - they ARE the market value. It may be higher than what you consider fair, but they are the market price, otherwise they would not sell.
    All these artificial limits accomplish is promote black market. They have absolutely no good effect on prices.

  • psychopsycho Posts: 332
    Remember the times when there were no vendor search, when people actually ran around and played the game. Nowadays people just stand at a safe logout location and search vendor all day. Actually there should be a fee for just searching on vs, that would maybe put an stop to those who does nothing but vendor search all day long.

    For the limit of 175m searches, I say money drains. Then there would be no need to sell anything above 175m. And if you for some reason still need to --> auction safe.

    Theres too many auction saves in game already, stuff should be on vendors.
  • SlissSliss Posts: 283
    psycho said:
    Remember the times when there were no vendor search, when people actually ran around and played the game. Nowadays people just stand at a safe logout location and search vendor all day. Actually there should be a fee for just searching on vs, that would maybe put an stop to those who does nothing but vendor search all day long.

    For the limit of 175m searches, I say money drains. Then there would be no need to sell anything above 175m. And if you for some reason still need to --> auction safe.

    Theres too many auction saves in game already, stuff should be on vendors.
    I don't really see running around from vendor to vendor as playing the game. I see it as wasting time that is better spent playing the game. It really puzzles me why so many people want to put artificial barriers to in-game economy. 
  • SmootSmoot Posts: 410
    its not so much "running from vendor to vendor", its more having a mental idea of the game world.  like before search i knew where the good vendors where.  i had much better idea of the houses, and players who lived in the area.  yes it took a little more time to search the vendors, but often ran into players and some good conversations along the way.

    now i just sit in my house alone, search, use the recall map in open the vendor and immediately leave.  i have no idea of the land around the houses or who even lives there.  could i take the time to do that without buying stuff?  yes.  but people will always tend to do whats easiest.  so something was lost there.

    kinda like wow (havent played in years) lost a huge element of the mmorpg / community aspect when you could just phase into a dungeon rather than having to travel there physically. 
  • SwordofExcaliburSwordofExcalibur Posts: 95
    If the vote asked to destroy all physical wealth in the form of coin, that might make UO just a tad more interesting.

    I voted to keep it at 175. 

    Whatever party promotes restoring some game play to almost near the older days, I would gladly support it.

    Blessed be.
    Dennis the Peasant: "Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony." 
    Arthur: "Be quiet!" 
    Dennis: "You can't expect to wield supreme power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!” 
    Monty Python & the Holy Grail
  • TrismegistosTrismegistos Posts: 197
    The new vendor is a no-risk with high prices vendor.
    Only the house storage and market pressure may help to keep the prices in current regions.

  • FortisFortis Posts: 411
    with this new vendor big pocket can control the market easily...some items will sky rock
  • TimTim Posts: 823
    As someone usually on the buyer side all I can say is if you don't like the price don't buy it.

    That's how capitalism works.

    I've been playing way too many years and can't think of any one item that would make the game unplayable or even unfun without it.
  • WornOutYourToolWornOutYourTool Posts: 299
    psycho said:
    Actually there should be a fee for just searching on vs, that would maybe put an stop to those who does nothing but vendor search all day long.

    After they start charging rent for bank sitting stalls.  Trillion plat gold sink idea right there.
Sign In or Register to comment.