Commissioned vendors and pricing

Yes, Galaxies had a merchants path with titles, also, but was pretty basic in comparison to Eve, and really it just needs to be a simple start to get a framework built.

 

This is the part that needs to be fixed. A commission should never be paid on an unsold good. Isn't that the point of a commission? It sold?

Starr saying they would be used for storage never has made any sense to me, backpacks can hold 300 items.

 

Backpacks can hold 150 items but I agree that vendors should charge their fee when the item is sold. Nobody is going to use a vendor for extra storage and even if they did, so what?! Maybe the solution to this unwarranted fear is to make vendors take up a NPC slot and a container slot.

 

Just pointing out that that would be bad for people with row houses. The container limit on the "front porch" are is 1, so you wouldn't be able to have both a vendor and a container. And I agree that something needs to be done so that items can be repriced without penalty. The most straightforward way would be to refund listing fees when removing an item.

 

The basic problems lies in that at the time of implementing Player Vendors (commissioned) then in the first iteration they took a cheap shortcut and copy-pasted their solution that they had already done for the Public Vendors (just without the expire date). Unfortunately most of the limits imposed on Public Vendors make little or no sense on Player Vendors. Then since at the time it was before persistence and most who had a lot also got a commission free vendor, so not many outside us more economically interested protested enough to make them do another iteration.
Everything after that is just post-factum rationalization which had nothing to do with the decision at the time and is just strange to me. I remember since I complained a lot back then about how that implementation wouldn't work for new players and would be detrimental to their goal of a player driven economy.

For you who doubt me:

This can easily be seen since the Public Vendors were implemented loooooong before any player vendors. Where they went through a couple of iterations and changes for the unique situation of Public Vendors.

Where we can see that all the arguments are from those Public Vendor issues addressed long before Player Vendors existed and are not related or even applicable to Player Vendors.

The whole debacle of pay-before-listing is from Public Vendors and there it makes some sense since it is to limit frivolous listings of items that won't sell and to limit the tech coding / UI necessary to handle post-sale-commissions, but it makes no sense for a Player Vendor.

Same thing with the storage rationalization - that was a thing way back before persistence on Public Vendors (it was cheaper to list them than to increase bank slots). But it makes absolutely no sense for Player Vendors since if you can place a Player Vendor then you have a house in which you can have X number of containers.

Also way back then before persistence they said they would experiment with different % of the commission to see which worked best for the economy where the 10% was just a placeholder. But now since persistence there has been no such experimentation.
One suggestion from back then which we discussed with Chris et al was to have different commissions depending on the amount - so small sales would have less tax like 5% and larger sales 50k+ would get the 10%.

etc

 

@Bzus @DarkStarr Totally agree with Spoon. And I know you probably have plans for this already, but I'm asking you to bump up the timeline on this specific aspect of the economy so that new players can get in the economic game more quickly.

I'm using a commissioned vendor as an experiment now, and it can be done with high risk by an experienced trader, but it's a total disaster for a the new players that need to use it.

It's also one of the biggest PTW complaints from the outside since commission free vendors currently run around 800,000g, and commissioned vendors can make you go broke if you are an expert at pricing (as new player aren't.)

Also, just a reminder, a commission is paid on a SALE in RL, not on the listing of items. Paying a commission on unsold goods is crazy.

You already have the functionality to refund a portion of the commission on Public Vendor time-outs, for the sake of new players who want to participate, refund the whole commission on these player owned commissioned vendors so that they can participate in the economy, make a mistake in pricing, and try again instead of rage quitting.

 

If you don't pay before listing, when do you pay? Same for the buy orders, you might not have the money when the time comes, and you certainly aren't likely to be around. This is why a fee refund is the appropriate change for removing an unsold item. Still, a public vendor is a somewhat limited resource, and I'm fine with no refund there.

I have also always thought that 10% is a rather high amount as a fee, even for a public vendor, but that's a completely different matter. What are fees in various MMOs? FFXI was on the order of 1-2%, though it was "complicated" in many ways.

 

The fee is deducted from the price the buyer pays at the time they hand over their money.

 

This makes the most sense out of anything. Almost like the real world!

 

My vendor stays inside, doesn't like the cold and dust from the street plus at some point, it might rain. Much nicer indoors.

 

Exactly. That's what a commission is - a cut of the sale. Right now, vendors charge 10% of the list price when you list and they don't give it back if you take the item down, pick your vendor up, relist it for a different price, etc. It's a total rip off.
It's I'm sorry to say, pay2win because people lose a lot of money paying commission fees whereas those that can afford bundles or paying for the commission-free vendor with cash makes it untouchable for many players. It's a total imbalance and completely unfair.

My one and only suggestion to even the gaming field is to remove commission free vendors OR make all vendors commission free.

 

Only the Sith deal in absolutes.

 

hmm, or you could go with the literal definition:

a value or principle that is regarded as universally valid or that may be viewed without relation to other things.

 

Or maybe I should have just responded with "That will never, ever, ever happen." and cite any number of previous shitstorms.

 

I'm not sure where you're going with the last two comments. Would you please elaborate? Are you trying to say that just because the problem has been discussed before, regardless of there still being an issue, it is that which we are not allowed to discuss?

 

No, I suppose you can discuss it, but I'm telling you that either option ---commission-free vendors removed from the game, or making all vendors commission-free--- would kill the CF vendor value of the original backers. Therefore, I don't believe that Portalarium would do either of those things because (maybe even more important at this time) they can't afford the negative press.

Carry on.

 

Disappointing to see you use this type of phrase/ argument. *shrugs*

 

Well come to Wizards Rest I let all residents use mine if they want or need a vendor to use. Also I have seen CF vendors here an there on player vendors. It is digital cash in the long run. It is easy to focus on negatives. When the Devs were putting together pledge items to entice players to help start up this game who could know we would get posts like this. For me it took me two years to pay for my pledge. I am never trying to be unfair to other players. I share the best I can. If someone cannot afford or does not chose to buy a bundle with a commission free vendor and spend that kind of RL money on a game then it is what it is. No matter which game we play there will be things that are irritating and it is a personal choice to pick your battles sometimes. That you lose out on some digital money because of a vendor that charges you commission then you have picked that. For me I get totally pissed for a few moments that is when I use up a ton of ore to try to make myself a nicer piece of armor and then it gets destroyed and I get a few measly scraps back. That irritates me and I will keep mentioning it. I can't do anything about it but mention it though, the rest is up to the Dev team and that battle either the Devs will fix crafting or they won't.

A pledge reward or bundle reward can be mentioned in complaints to take this privileged item from being rare or not depending on if they deem it is worthwhile. No matter what people say the incentive and need to spend real money are for this game there for a reason. I truly believe this.

If anyone just can't stand paying commissions on a commission vendor talk to me. You can list on my vendor. Also per Lord Baldrith governor of Wizards Rest and I would be privileged and honored at Wizards Rest to let people list on our vendors. I don't see how this argument needs to go on, but as usual I am not in agreement that this game doesn't need a lot more real money for development. Again Myself (majoria in game) and Lord Baldrith (Baldrith in game)welcome your listings on our vendors in Wizards Rest which are commission free)

And I too hate the comment about 'favoring the whales'. Please stop that. We are all part of this community lets be respectful of each other. You have no idea who you are talking about and what their hardships may or may not be in life.

 

Constructive solutions provided without disparaging remarks! Thanks @Stryker Sparhawk (As always)

 

I would just note that advance commission doesn't stop people from using Commission Free Vendors as storage ! Which is going to be a lot of the vendors out there, since a lot of the real estate is taken up by people who have Kickstarter pledges. In light of that, it seems a strange concern.

Ideally, actually, what would be really cool -- in my view, anyway -- is having to tie a vendor to a storage container. Something I suggested earlier in development is that this could be some type of shop counter or shelving or other type of display that shows visually to passerbys what you put in it. So you can see visually what the vendor has for sale. But anyway, until such a fantasy scenario comes true (a fish can hope), you could assign a storage container as a source for items for sale, and then configuring the vendor would just be a matter of setting prices on items in there (or excluding them from sale by marking them as such).

I never played Eve or SWG, but I always thought something that would be cool is if vendors were treated like hirelings rather than as furniture... Where you would have a vendor pool you'd have to select from, and the hirelings in the pools all looked different and had different names and personalities. Then, if the game ever advanced to this extent, you could even assign them a bed, etc. But it any case, it wouldn't be treating them as dolls you dress up.