Is the vendor system definitely done for?

[StefanProdan]

One of the main characteristics of an inefficient market system is that it has barriers to entry. Vendors as they are right now have a huge barrier to entry, with the 1000 pp investment and trying to find one open and everything.

Vendors could create both a consumer and producer surplus and benefit everyone on the server, but only if the huge barriers to entry were removed and everyone had the ability to get a vendor and start putting stuff up. Then the prices would come down to a more near-equilibrium price.

Obviously they COULD benefit players, if enough people can put up vendors it will increase the supply of goods, reducing their going prices.

 

[Manluas]

I think the vendors are a great benefit to the game.

The problem seems to be, that there aren't enough at the moment so that some players who started with the game later have to see how to claim their vendor or sell their items.
I think the vendors are not that unfair, just the system is.
What is if you expand the postmaster system so that you can maybe see the items someone has stocked in his bank at a vendor and post to him if you are interested so you can arrange a price and meeting place with him.
If you enable players to link their items from special bank slots while they are offline and also enable to post to them from their chosen vendor instead of let them storage their items there, will this be more fair to all others?

To the point that the vendors are just like a bot:

Maybe they are but there is a great difference between for example fish macroing or using tradeskill bots and paying for a vendor to sell your stuff like it is and was happening everywhere.

Another solution would be a zone compared to the Luclin Bazaar but I always disliked it and most others did to.


I for myself would prefer a system change with the vendors but not to take them out of the game or some people with less time to play would have great difficulties to sell there items.

 

[Wiz]

Here is a serious challenge for you to prove that the vendor system is not unfair and benefits everyone, hooden.

I offer to take your vendor, give you your items and money back, and give the vendor to someone else, first thing tomorrow. You'd no longer have a vendor, but you'd be able to benefit from buying from one more vendor, and you've been arguing that this is perfectly fair, so I don't see why you should have a problem with it.

Just let me know when you want to take me up on the offer.

 

[hooden]

The argument that everyone benefits because you sell to everyone is simply and plainly untrue. YOU benefit, and occasionally one of the people who won't ever be able to compete with you as far as selling items goes buys something from you at a fair price. I imagine you would like the current system a whole lot less if you didn't happen to be one the priviledged few to own a vendor.

While I do enjoy the benefits of owning a vendor, I also enjoy purchasing at other vendors on my own time. I know this because yesterday I bought a spell from a vendor. I also bought something for my friend a few days ago. I also browse the vendors when I'm in town. All of that has nothing to do with the fact that I own a vendor.

and occasionally one of the people who won't ever be able to compete with you as far as selling items goes buys something from you at a fair price

Did you completely glance over this or something?

The fact that people without a vendor sometimes buy stuff from vendors does not change the fact that the vendor system is horribly unfair. Or would you be peachy with everything if I took your vendor and gave it someone else?

If you took my vendor away, and guaranteed that vendors as a whole would stay in the game, not only do I think the economy would be better off than with no vendors, but I would also willingly make that sacrifice. You seem to think that my opinion is tainted by the fact that I am an owner of a vendor. However, I have the viewpoint of a consumer as well, as I've stated I do buy from them.

I absolutely like having a vendor. Additionally, I absolutely do not want to be forced to /auc and sit around like the old days.

 

[hooden]

Here is a serious challenge for you to prove that the vendor system is not unfair and benefits everyone, hooden.

I offer to take your vendor, give you your items and money back, and give the vendor to someone else, first thing tomorrow. You'd no longer have a vendor, but you'd be able to benefit from buying from one more vendor, and you've been arguing that this is perfectly fair, so I don't see why you should have a problem with it.

Just let me know when you want to take me up on the offer.

Read it...

 

[hooden]

Oh yea, get the one in SNP and NNP if the system stays in.

 

[Wiz]

I am not guaranteeing that vendors will stay in the game if I take yours, I don't see why such a guarantee is necessary since you'd be losing nothing by having your vendor given to someone else. :?

 

[hooden]

I am talking about the vendor system staying in. My whole point is to keep vendors in because it saves time (buying and selling). To simply take my vendor away, then everyone elses really doesn't do anything.

 

[Haphesto]

Wiz, did you completely glaze over my post? Or are the changes suggested in it not possible with the game engine?

 

[Wiz]

I am talking about the vendor system staying in. My whole point is to keep vendors in because it saves time (buying and selling). To simply take my vendor away, then everyone elses really doesn't do anything.

So, are you accepting the challenge or not?

A yes or a no, please.

 

[Wiz]

Wiz, did you completely glaze over my post? Or are the changes suggested in it not possible with the game engine?

I've already stated we don't want a system like that in the sticky post.

 

[hooden]

I am really unclear about your proposal. You want me to give up my vendor for what in return?

You are saying give my vendor to someone else for nothing? Well, that's either the definition of generosity, stupidity, or unfairness. You can pick.

 

[Elysium]

I am really unclear about your proposal. You want me to give up my vendor for what in return?

You are saying give my vendor to someone else for nothing? Well, that's either the definition of generosity, stupidity, or unfairness. You can pick.

Well, as far as I understand, if you claim BOTH parties benefit equally from a vendor, you should have no problem being the person without one.

 

[hooden]

I am really unclear about your proposal. You want me to give up my vendor for what in return?

You are saying give my vendor to someone else for nothing? Well, that's either the definition of generosity, stupidity, or unfairness. You can pick.

Well, as far as I understand, if you claim BOTH parties benifit equally from a vendor, you should have no problem being the person without one.

As a whole, yea we all benefit. But I also got my vendors in a fair manner, so why should I just give them up for nothing? As of right now I'm under the impression we are all losing them, so this is a foolish argument. We accomplish nothing.

 

[Wiz]

I am really unclear about your proposal. You want me to give up my vendor for what in return?

You are saying give my vendor to someone else for nothing? Well, that's either the definition of generosity, stupidity, or unfairness. You can pick.

I want you to give up your vendor since you are claiming that vendors are at max a little unfair (and heavily implying they are not unfair at all) and that the advantages are almost as big to the people that have a vendor as to the ones that don't have them, which means giving up your vendor would be a minor sacrifice at most.

I am giving you your money and items back, you're not losing anything except your vendor, which apparently you would benefit almost as much from if someone else owned it according to your own words.

 

[hooden]

I am really unclear about your proposal. You want me to give up my vendor for what in return?

You are saying give my vendor to someone else for nothing? Well, that's either the definition of generosity, stupidity, or unfairness. You can pick.

I want you to give up your vendor since you are claiming that vendors are at max a little unfair (and heavily implying they are not unfair at all) and that the advantages are almost as big to the people that have a vendor as to the ones that don't have them, which means giving up your vendor would be a minor sacrifice at most.

I am giving you your money and items back, you're not losing anything except your vendor, which apparently you would benefit almost as much from if someone else owned it according to your own words.

See my previous post please.

 

[Wiz]

I am really unclear about your proposal. You want me to give up my vendor for what in return?

You are saying give my vendor to someone else for nothing? Well, that's either the definition of generosity, stupidity, or unfairness. You can pick.

I want you to give up your vendor since you are claiming that vendors are at max a little unfair (and heavily implying they are not unfair at all) and that the advantages are almost as big to the people that have a vendor as to the ones that don't have them, which means giving up your vendor would be a minor sacrifice at most.

I am giving you your money and items back, you're not losing anything except your vendor, which apparently you would benefit almost as much from if someone else owned it according to your own words.

See my previous post please.

I did, and it's utterly irrelevant to my point. Why would you have issues with giving up your vendor if you benefit equally from having it as not having it?

If I pick up a rock from the ground, I acquired it fairly, but that doesn't give it any particular keeping value. It's a non sequitor.

 

[hooden]

My whole point in posting here was to hopefully salvage the idea of vendors since as a consumer and seller, I like the system. If you take my vendor today, then take everyone's vendor next week I will not be financially ruined (this is how it appears to be going down). If that is the case, take them all now including mine.

 

[Wiz]

My whole point in posting here was to hopefully salvage the idea of vendors since as a consumer and seller, I like the system. If you take my vendor today, then take everyone's vendor next week I will not be financially ruined (this is how it appears to be going down). If that is the case, take them all now including mine.

You dodged the question, so I'll repeat it. Why do you have issues giving up your vendor since you claim that everyone benefits equally?

 

[Mean Gorilla]

Where did the equally come from? I did read hooden say that both parties benefit, but by shear logic the man who is a consumer and a seller in this market is going to benefit more.