Proposal to change TC Vendor Removal

[Devlin]

As it stands a vendor will be removed after 3 weeks of inactivity, I.E unrestocked for 3 weeks, and placed into a reserve vendor area.
However, a person may simply log on every 2 weeks, add one or two items and/or simply reprice an item (or put it back to the same price) and the restock date changes. Seeing as there are three PRIME locations in TC that have vendors that have done this for 3 months now, as well as a few other not so great spots, I believe the stock should be analyzed as well. There is one vendor, front in center, ideally the best spot, that has had NOTHING but a SINGLE unfilled BoD book on his vendor for three months, fluctuating in prices and spots constantly. Occasionally a Pet PS or other BOD reward pops in bi-weekly, but never more than 3 items and the same ones at that. People that don't play anymore or simply log on to MAINTAIN their TC vendor spot, not even benefit from it, don't deserve a vendor spot in the primary location; someone who plays actively and wishes to obtain a good spot should be allowed to, instead of being banished to MZ.

[+Veritas]

"People that don't play anymore or simply log on to MAINTAIN their TC vendor spot, not even benefit from it, don't deserve a vendor spot in the primary location; someone who plays actively and wishes to obtain a good spot should be allowed to, instead of being banished to MZ."

With the most respect and understanding of your frustration, I have to say there is a lot of danger in making a statement like this one. Also, consider the amount of logging us staff would have to do on top of what we normally do. We would have to log the number of items and their prices each time a restocking occurred. Also, if we had to do that...we would also have to log the unique identification values of each item in each vendor. This would be most appropriate for a vendor who sells multiples of one item, like royal hive robes. What about piles of items, like powder of translocation? The unique identification for a pile of items will change if broken into two piles and remerged, and then there would be no way to track if the player really restocked or if they just broke up their piles and rebuilt them.

Please keep in mind they do have to check the date of restock, as well as pay the daily fee. It's not like once they have it, it's theirs without responsibility or price.

+V

[Highroller]

Well being moved solely on basic of restock time is bogus. I lost my prime location due to that and had approx 3 times normal weight limit of maxed pets on it. The very fact I had spent so much to build up its weight limit so I WOULDN'T have to restock so often was why I lost the location. It sure as hell wasn't because it NEEDED a restock. Yet you have people with little to no stock that aren't losing their location. It needs an overhaul of SOME kind...

[+Veritas]

Again, not trying to throw fuel on the fire, but...

What would be an alternate way of managing the TC vendors with the following in mind?:
1.) Doesn't infringe on the player's right of claiming the spot first, selling as little or large amount he/she wants, while following the set rules and keeping up on payment.
2.) Follows a rule set, rather than an individual's subjective opinion.
3.) Is independant of want(s) of seat renter.
4.) Does not cause staff more time and headaches to monitor (I refer to the pile example in my previous post).

+V

[anarchy]

erm.. devlin if you contact me in game i have a spot right up front first level in tc. i'll get rid of my vendor for you. i don't have much on it, and i'll be happy to sign it over to you. i can take a mz vendor if i need one in the future.

[Johnny Warren]

I think the system is ok... i Guess at 50k/week (or however much it is) should ensure that players are only using the vendor to sell things and make a profit... with new Exex coming out maybe vendors are all gonna be useless anyway...which i think would be sad as its been a staple in UO for years...

One problem I'm not looking forward to is... I'm going on an overseas trip for approx 4 weeks, i wont be able to restock my vendor during that time. I am an active seller moving 500k+ gold per week of stock and really dont want to lose my vendor location (front row of TC)...

So i ask the GM's: If i stock my vendor well before leaving and then placing an unsellable item in the main backpack with the dscription "Overseas for 4 weeks, please don't remove me" will it be removed?

JW

[Devlin]

Thanks, Anarchy, my vendor is on the corner next to you, tho
+V, my apologies for the oversight; I knew any new implementation would involve a little more work than a quick scan, forgot about stackables, etc. creating new item IDs and whatnot, essentially making any idea I had impossible.
The current system works... Just needs a bit of tweaking. There are two things that need be analyzed: Overstocking a vendor intentionally(I.E. Highroller), or shifting an item(s) to change the restock date(I.E. Zax)
In the case of Highroller, who invested (I believe) 350k to increase his vendors weight capacity to 800- to accommodate his large number of pets - the 3 week rule shouldn't apply; instead, stock should be analyzed in that situation. Highroller preemptively prepared his vendor so he wouldn't have to restock often, yet was barred by a rule and lost out on his +weight investment on his vendor (and the best spot in TC, IMO)
In the case of Zax, who has had the same BoD book on his vendor for a few months now... Well, that's basically my point. He doesn't play. He logs on bi-weekly, does a BoD or two and plops a pet pscroll onto his vendor. There are at least two others in TC that remain constantly unstocked, yet still exist.
Possible solutions?
1. Add a feature only staff can see that shows if a vendor has had his weight capacity increased; if so, analyze stock or something comparative.
2. If a vendor is never stocked, players may opt to flag that vendor for review by staff.
Anywho, thoughts?

[+Colibri]

I know it's not the best solution, but whether a vendor needs to be removed can be determined quantitatively, simply by setting a date and seeing which all vendors need to be moved.

I see the vendor you are referring to here, and yes he is hogging the place, who knows maybe he plans on restocking that thing when he has more time.

Problem is, any qualitative approach will definitely not be fair, and as Veritas said it's would be impossible for us to keep track of this as well. And then, if just a single item being restocked is not enough to keep the vendor spot, then people might just put 3 items in there. So it's not a good solution.

Maybe based on the last sale as well (not just the restock, but the Last sale gets checked too) but that's easy to cheat, just ask a friend to buy something from it and you refund them.
Oh and just had an idea, how about based on the number of people that have shopped there in the past 2 weeks. The number would have to be at least 3, or it's considered that the shop (even if restocked fully on a regular basis) is not interesting to buyers. Also, harder to get 3 friends to buy from you.


qbf, regarding your question: Only solution to that I see is in the co-owner system.

[Johnny Warren]

qbf, regarding your question: Only solution to that I see is in the co-owner system.

Didn't even think of that. Thanks...

Can a person own a vendor in TC and also co-own a vendor in TC?

[+Colibri]

Yep, you can own only one but if you have lots of friends, you can be a co-owner on a dozen, while still being an owner on yours.


How's this idea: (copy paste from the post before)
Based on the number of people that have shopped there in the past 2 weeks. The number would have to be at least 3, or it's considered that the shop (even if restocked fully on a regular basis) is not interesting to buyers. Also, harder to get 3 friends to buy from you.

This would be on top of the "last restock" check. Even if you haven't stocked it in 2 weeks already, if it had good items on it, it's quite probable that a few people bought something from it in the past 2 weeks. Though keep in mind we still have to move a certain number of vendors every week, so that 2 week period will probably go down to 7-10 days.

[Qualance]

maybe its make a problem for high price items because their sold rate not good as lower price ones.

[+Colibri]

Maybe if we just increase the price on them, a similar thing like in Makoto Zento would happen. Right now there are always a few empty seats. And since the whole point of moving vendors out is to have a few empty seats, this would be less necesary (and the vendor age would be moved to 3-4 weeks.

[Ceara]

I don't understand the complaint against TC vendors, when Makoto Zento has MANY empty seats. It's rather sad there actually.

Excelsior Halls too is pretty empty, and usually old/unwanted vendors end up there.

I prefer Zento, because it's nowhere near as laggy as TC, with not as many things that need to load. If I window shop in TC, it takes about 2 minutes for all the proper names to show up on items. For example, a plant seed is a "fishing weight" before it loads properly.

I propose no changes should be made until all public vendor areas are 100% full.

[+Colibri]

Actually excelsior halls is just a place where we move old vendors. It's not possible to get a vendor there (by doubleclicking a chair).

[Johnny Warren]

In all honesty I think the vendor system is fine right now... Yes I agree with Anarchy that its annoying that there are some vendors who sell nothing, or nothing of interest anyway, but the owners could have some grand plan in mind that we don't know about so it would be unfair to move them. Most players (IMO) don't want to waste the gold just holding the vendor there for no reason and want to sell stuff so it's in their best interest to stock their vendor with stuff...

I think if you change the system so that the vendor has to make x sales/week is risky as some vendors sell high end expensive gear and cant make this. Plus any system like that can be cheated around.

Just my 2 cents

-JW