New Vendors

2. Can we have a vendor that does not charge by the hour?

Yes we can come up with an additional vendor that doesn't charge by the hour but instead takes up house storage and charges a commission percentage only when the item is sold. This type of vendor will be in addition to the original style of vendor.

When is this coming in?

This is fantastic all round, and would help shards, and player vendors so much, and bring the fun back for many.

When I see things like this, and to be fair, they do keep them coming slowly, it raises my faith in the developers, they are listening, and implementing changes that are good for the game.

Plenty of things piss me off of course, but they do manage to hit some good issues.

I will always be here to keep their eye on the ball. 🙂

I’m a little concerned that they’re planning to keep the existing vendor charge also. I foresee people in the know benefiting from getting new vendor contracts while those who don’t read the forums - paying over the odds. 

I guess the following is relevant here:
Mesanna could say “did you not agree with me for a Denarius?” 

Matthew 20 the laborers of the vineyard. 

Sounds pretty good. Average prices might rise though because items no longer need to sell fast

cobb said:

Sounds pretty good. Average prices might rise though because items no longer need to sell fast

Or they might fall because the seller won't have to pay 100% commission.

It is gonna depend on what the 'commission' is but for pure vendor houses it is unlikely to do much as I know with mine,by the time I have 20 odd full vendors that is like 2k or more lockdowns without accounting for stock.   Each of my vendors has a restock bag generally with another 125 items in it. So the house is already full.  It will also do nothing for rental vendors as those people who 'rent' out vendor spots are not going to have all their lockdowns used either.   The only people it would benefit would be those who had one or two vendors selling super high end items or who had just a few things to get rid of. Perhaps on trammel shards it is fine due to recalling to the boonies off the vendor search map.  They need to allow a 'gate' off the map on Siege to make it worth operating one vendor or so in the boonies.

It will let us put up slow moving items and odds and ends that sell cheap, yet sloooowwww, without eating up all the sales in vendor fees.

I personally enjoyed having vendors for all my crafts, with all the carp items on them, etc.  
I set them up, with x amount of gold, and then made them live on sales.  Slowly watched them go away...

This way, we can keep those slow items up there and not have to worry about them draining the life out of the vendor

They should just have the vendor charge for putting an item up along with the % cut when item is sold.  If need item space have the vendor charge for the amount of items he can put up by the week or so rather then having them use up house storage slots.   

Stuff like BOD books should be changed to take up only 5-10 item slots and only allowed on vendors when the BOD's are priced. 

Leave the original vendors alone.  If you want another type of vendor fine have both and what harm does it do to you that crafters have done this from the beginning of vendors with BOD books.  Lets remove containers from vendors while we are at it, I have seen vendors with 125 containers not marked, now that really hurts the UO player base doesn't it.

It would be nice if BOD books only took up 1 lockdown. Players would not need to use vendors to store BOD's. It would also be thematically consistent with other types of storage books.

Vendors could then be required to have things "for sale" instead of "for storage".  

We're coming up on nearly a month since this was announced. Has there been any more information released about how they'll work or when we may see them?

This is an amazing idea and I hope it comes true soon. Under the current system on a low pop shard there is very low incentive to place a seller because you know sales are going to be rare but still must keep feeding it gold. Besides the most demanded items, in most cases it’s not worth it at all.

MissE said:

It is gonna depend on what the 'commission' is but for pure vendor houses it is unlikely to do much as I know with mine,by the time I have 20 odd full vendors that is like 2k or more lockdowns without accounting for stock.   Each of my vendors has a restock bag generally with another 125 items in it. So the house is already full.  It will also do nothing for rental vendors as those people who 'rent' out vendor spots are not going to have all their lockdowns used either.   The only people it would benefit would be those who had one or two vendors selling super high end items or who had just a few things to get rid of. Perhaps on trammel shards it is fine due to recalling to the boonies off the vendor search map.  They need to allow a 'gate' off the map on Siege to make it worth operating one vendor or so in the boonies.

I asked for the gate option for Siege vendor shopping a while back, it was scoffed at by the shard purists...or is it Puritanist's ?

When are the new vendors going to be added?  It would be nice if it could be included with pub 101.

I hope this doesn't turn into an empty promise like the revamping of the account management page.

Nearly two months now since the initial statement. Can we get an update on this, pretty please. 

Maximus_Neximus said:

Nearly two months now since the initial statement. Can we get an update on this, pretty please. 

Very eager to hear more about this too, though probably won't be with this coming publish since it's about done. 

With the vendor change I will have no issues leaving items on my local shard that would be a slow sell usually. Can't imagine all the other people that would load vendors with similar items again. 

This item is currently in our backlog and we hope to implement it in a future publish.

Kyronix said:

This item is currently in our backlog and we hope to implement it in a future publish.

Good stuff, thanks Kyronix.

Thanks for your decent responses as well, to a couple of issues.

I currently don't do vendors, although I like vendors, I am waiting for this option to happen. The current scenario is just too expensive for me, and not worth my effort. In the current scenario, you have to devote all your time to it, to make it worthwhile.

Kyronix said:

This item is currently in our backlog and we hope to implement it in a future publish.

Thanks, appreciate the response ! 

Thank you for the response! Myself and others are very much looking forward to it!

SOON

I just saw that Publish 102 may be coming at the end of October and Pub 103 may be this year as well. I really, really hope that this makes it into one of them!

It's a super cool idea everyone likes and wants. Thus it's a low priority and will take forever.

You jaded rascal.  <span></span>

We need to get Mervyn on it!

Uriah_Heep said:

You jaded rascal.  <span></span>

We need to get Mervyn on it!

I wasn't born in UO that way. It was a learned behavior lol

So has anything changed on this as to a date of releasing? @Kyronix

I hope this is included in pub 103

This would be a good change/ new feature NOT 

i cant wait for the happy crowd to turn into a pissed off mob lol

im sure the vendor deed cost will be 100k or more (gold sink you know) the commission will be 50% or more and they already said something about the new vendors taking up storage space 125 house storage for each. 

Kinda seems about right, it fits the current games direction 

or or they could just simply adjust the current vendor cost back to a more reasonable level and save a lot of time and everyone would happy if it’s changed back to original. Nahhhh that’s to simple lol we hate simple..........

I think something may have been overlooked. You may find it goes from one extreme to another. You may find people putting all their trash on vendors at ridiculous prices just because there’s no fee until sale. And then you will all complain when you can’t see the wood for the trees. 

We are currently quite selective over the quality and price of items, the markets self regulate. With this proposed new vendor I can see myself dumping my legendaries in the vendor instead of melting them for relics.

I do understand the issue with the current vendor system, however I’m not absolutely convinced this is the answer. I think there also needs to be a fraction daily fee, sorry. 

Also, 2 different vendor types is very unnecessarily complicated. 

inb4 the new vendor is from the UO store. 

If they put vendors in the uo store for money would that be worth it? Say 1-3$ per vendor? That way there would be cash flow and then the fee after would be 5-10% of the total sale? Just thinking outside the box here.

Also, due to everyone putting their worthless trash on vendors (for ridiculous prices), this new vendor will probably result in vendor search either going down all the time, and/or taking about 20 mins. Then you'll all be crying on the forums again.

So this new vendor, taking up storage space... if same as a steward deed
no matter how much is in their inventory... it uses 125 storage

an 18x18 with max storage, has 66 vendor slots available 
max house storage is 3899, which means only 31 vendors of this type could be placed with only 24 items in the house


there is also a weight limit of what can go onto a vendor, unless every item weighs one stone, you wont be able to have a full vendor

Skett said:

or or they could just simply adjust the current vendor cost back to a more reasonable level and save a lot of time and everyone would happy if it’s changed back to original. Nahhhh that’s to simple lol we hate simple..........

This would not solve the problem of less populated shards where an item may sit on a vendor for months due to low demand.

Mervyn said:

I think something may have been overlooked. You may find it goes from one extreme to another. You may find people putting all their trash on vendors at ridiculous prices just because there’s no fee until sale. And then you will all complain when you can’t see the wood for the trees. 

We are currently quite selective over the quality and price of items, the markets self regulate. With this proposed new vendor I can see myself dumping my legendaries in the vendor instead of melting them for relics.

I do understand the issue with the current vendor system, however I’m not absolutely convinced this is the answer. I think there also needs to be a fraction daily fee, sorry. 

Also, 2 different vendor types is very unnecessarily complicated.

The markets will self regulate and people will stop putting trash on vendors at ridiculous prices, when they realize it's a waste of their time. A fee per sale system is present in pretty much every MMO out there other than UO. And it works just fine without major problems.

I agree with the “trash on the vendors” will self regulate and don’t forget “one mans trash is anthers treasure” 

the biggest question then is what is the Fee going to be and what is the cost of the new vendor deed 

yes I think its too early to jump to conclusions without even knowing what the fee is going to be.

Two types of vendors would be an great idea. The classic fee based we have now for high volume (guild type stuff) in vendor houses and a new storage cost type for slow moving stuff. 

I have a couple of boxes of stuff I would like to put on a vendor as a community service. It's stuff I don't need but I can see that someone else might want or need some day. I don't do it now because I would be paying more in fees then a fair price would be by the time they sold. But I would be willing to give up some oh so precious storage slots to do it.

As for the argument against that they would just fill up with junk.  At one time or another I've had every size house in the game and only one thing was constant THERE IS NEVER ENOUGH STORAGE. With a choice of keeping some junk I've already decided I don't want on a vendor or god help me sorting and getting rid of my stuff I know what I'm doing.

The idea is good enough to wait and see what the details are be for deciding.

People won't waste their time putting trash on vendors? Without a vendor daily fee, you will put something on a vendor instead of a chest, it's just as easy, and then just forget about it. There will be no self regulation at all.

I hate to say this but I have to agree with @Mervyn He does have a point in that if these vendors do not take up any storage then people will just place chests of junk on them for 175M so no one buys them.  Without some sort of daily fee they will be storage bins.

maybe for the new style of vendors, they should change it so that it does take up storage space.

I thought they WERE gonna take up storage space?  Wasn't the the trade-off for using them?

Can see how hording could become an issue. How about make it so the vendors that only charge commission count towards storage space double. So you set down a commission only vendor and it immediately takes up 125 lock downs.

As items are added to it, it gets more lock downs added to the house. Thus having such a vendor 
like this with 125 items in it, would be 250 towards the house. 

Also, each house can only have one of these types of vendors.

I believe some people hoard stuff because they don't want to sell it way cheap, but they can't
afford to let it sit on a vendor.

Stuff that you, yourself, can set a price on and think "I kinda like this, but could part with it for the right price."  

I am one of those folks who can't afford a vendor to let decent items collect dust on. 

Ah Yes i concede storage space would somewhat control the amount of trash people put on vendors.

fee should be 25% of the sale price minimum.... this game need gold sink
sadly but true... i pay mils in commission each day and i still make money... If you dont want to pay a commission for high products sells them on general chat at right price they go fast.

How about a scaling fee any thing 1 mil and under 10% 1 mil to 25 mil 15% 25mil to 50 mil 20% 50 mil plus 25% 100mil and above 35% cap 

and if an item sits on a vendor for more than 45 days it gets hit with the percentage fee and will again in anther 45 days this will stop people from just storing “junk” on them so can we now stop with the lame storage idea already 

okay I just tossed those numbers out there with out much thought to make a point (kinda of like everything I post) 

Skett said:

and if an item sits on a vendor for more than 45 days it gets hit with the percentage fee and will again in anther 45 days this will stop people from just storing “junk” on them so can we now stop with the lame storage idea already

You still haven't shown how a vendor storing junk hurts you any more then all the empty vendors. Why would anyone go to the effort of getting a vendor and storing things there rather than a box?

The idea about a percentage/time fee would just defeat the whole purpose of the idea. And it sound a lot like existing businesses trying to keep out new competition.
  

Fortis said:

fee should be 25% of the sale price minimum.... this game need gold sink
sadly but true... i pay mils in commission each day and i still make money... If you dont want to pay a commission for high products sells them on general chat at right price they go fast.

Please try to make millions in commission every day and still make money on a less populated shard.

Skett said:

How about a scaling fee any thing 1 mil and under 10% 1 mil to 25 mil 15% 25mil to 50 mil 20% 50 mil plus 25% 100mil and above 35% cap 

and if an item sits on a vendor for more than 45 days it gets hit with the percentage fee and will again in anther 45 days this will stop people from just storing “junk” on them so can we now stop with the lame storage idea already 

okay I just tossed those numbers out there with out much thought to make a point (kinda of like everything I post) 

Since these vendors will take house storage space, "storing junk" is a non issue. At the same time, putting a 20%+ tax on these will end up like way too many "improvements" in UO = tons of coding hours spent on a feature that nobody uses.

I don’t feel the new vendors should take up house storage I feel that’s a bad idea. 

The numbers where here just thrown out there make up your own 5% 10% 15% idk it was to show a more balanced way of a fee 

example I’m selling black rock stew $5k each I do t want to get hit with a 30% fee I wouldn’t even bother making them for other players if the fee was on,y 5% then it makes since. Blackrock stew sits for months and months sometimes and other times it sells quickly, that’s why I would use this type of vendor. 

Or or if I have a tangle and want to sell it on a low population shard for $15 mil I would have to pay a 10% fee 

once again I haven’t ran the numbers I could be way off maybe it should only be 1% and 5% 

but the housing storage idea is very lazy and stupid one, you will be getting hit with a fee as it is,  why are some people so obsessed with punishing others yet complain about low population shards not having vendors think about it ? If it cost me more to sell an item than what I’m making I’m not going to sell it, if I put 30 blackrock stew on my vendor but it takes up house space I’m not going to make it to sell. 

(Not sure why I picked blackrock) 

Ok I think we have wandered off what the original idea was. (check out the original post) 

A second type of vendor. Not replacing existing the vendor. The new one would take up house storage rather then a regular gold charge. You choose which one you use.

The talk about fees and commissions is more about changing the existing vendors rates then about a new one. Not to say that may not be needed but that's not what was proposed. 

ps "Also, 2 different vendor types is very unnecessarily complicated" your going to have to explain that one or are you just trolling again. 

Who ever is setting up the vendor picks one, other players should see no difference between the 3 types. (new, standard & rental)  The programers say no problem so how is it complicated?

Skett said:

I don’t feel the new vendors should take up house storage I feel that’s a bad idea. 

Why? That is one way to alleviate your concern about people using vendors as storage, while addressing my concern of stifling commerce with unreasonable fees.

Sliss said:

Skett said:

I don’t feel the new vendors should take up house storage I feel that’s a bad idea. 

Why? That is one way to alleviate your concern about people using vendors as storage, while addressing my concern of stifling commerce with unreasonable fees.

If you don't want a vendor to take up house storage, you can still use the current vendor. The new vendor is an option for those of us who don't have the gold to pay the current fees.

Sliss said:

Skett said:

I don’t feel the new vendors should take up house storage I feel that’s a bad idea. 

Why? That is one way to alleviate your concern about people using vendors as storage, while addressing my concern of stifling commerce with unreasonable fees.

I think you misunderstood me I could careless about people using them as storage.
others are concerned about it 

I think they need put the vendors back to how they use to work and quit adding more and more unnecessary bs in this game and spend more time making it fun if they can 

The new vendors would be more fun for low populated shards. Sellers can put more items on their vendors without losing money and buyers would have more items to buy.

Mervyn said:

I think something may have been overlooked. You may find it goes from one extreme to another. You may find people putting all their trash on vendors at ridiculous prices just because there’s no fee until sale. And then you will all complain when you can’t see the wood for the trees. 

We are currently quite selective over the quality and price of items, the markets self regulate. With this proposed new vendor I can see myself dumping my legendaries in the vendor instead of melting them for relics.

I do understand the issue with the current vendor system, however I’m not absolutely convinced this is the answer. I think there also needs to be a fraction daily fee, sorry. 

Also, 2 different vendor types is very unnecessarily complicated. 

Totally agree!

Sorry but I've gone through this thread three times and still not sure.

Even if your worse case comes about how would the original idea (a vendor using house storage rather than daily fee) negatively affect your game play?

I admit there is no shortage of crazy people out there but why would anyone use a vendor that costs $$$ (gold sinks being in I don't expect them to be cheep) to set up rather then a free box or bag?

Four months later, hoping for an update and introduction into the game soon.

I second this. Please let us know the status of this. I hope the new vendors are coming soon.

With the amount of vendors  i have (30) and keep every one fully stocked, ill be using the old style for sure, as the new way would take up all my storage, on my shard low population, im the only main vendor shop there that offers a vast range of items and about 5 minor vendor shops

LillyMae_1 said:

With the amount of vendors  i have (30) and keep every one fully stocked, ill be using the old style for sure, as the new way would take up all my storage, on my shard low population, im the only main vendor shop there that offers a vast range of items and about 5 minor vendor shops

The best part is that you can your style of vendor while those of us who would prefer the new vendor can do that!

Been roughly 6 months now. Hopefully this will be included in the upcoming quality of life publish.

I’m looking forward to this because I have high end items to sell but have hardly any gold. 

These are on the radar for this year's series of publishes - which exact one I couldn't tell you yet.

Kyronix said:

These are on the radar for this year's series of publishes - which exact one I couldn't tell you yet.

Thank you for the update

Yes thanks for the info.
Will keep stockpiling  🙂

2. Can we have a vendor that does not charge by the hour?

Yes we can come up with an additional vendor that doesn't charge by the hour but instead takes up house storage and charges a commission percentage only when the item is sold. This type of vendor will be in addition to the original style of vendor.

Simple solution is to leave vendors mostly the way they currently are and just change the daily/hourly fee to a one-time fee paid when the item sells.  It's a sales tax.  Who in the world isn't already accustomed to paying sales tax?  Seriously!  It's that simple of a fix.

1) leave vendors as they are and do not count towards house storage limits.
2) remove the daily/hourly fee
3) charge a sales tax when an item sells.
4) I propose a 5% sales tax, paid by the buyer which goes into the city treasury or something.

Ezekiel_Zane said:

Simple solution is to leave vendors mostly the way they currently are and just change the daily/hourly fee to a one-time fee paid when the item sells.  It's a sales tax.  Who in the world isn't already accustomed to paying sales tax?  Seriously!  It's that simple of a fix.

1) leave vendors as they are and do not count towards house storage limits.
2) remove the daily/hourly fee
3) charge a sales tax when an item sells.
4) I propose a 5% sales tax, paid by the buyer which goes into the city treasury or something.

@ Kyronix 

Sorry for this long post.

Oh Boy, this is not a long post. This a very long post 🙂

I understand for the person who only wants one or two vendors to get rid of junk it will be fine.  I am just pointing out how the 'new' proposed vendors will have only a very niche use,

Respectfully, those people running one or two vendors are the majority. The niche are the mega-mall owners like you. TBH, I think you are mistaken in thinking that the new vendors will be of no use to you. But even it it's the case, I think far from being niche, I expect them to revitalize economies of smaller shards and undo some of the damage done by shard shield. Let me repeat that - if the plain sails tax (with a reasonable fee) vendors are implemented, I would expect to see a dramatic positive effect on less populated shards, an effect that would boost population among other things.

This type of vendor  will also not work for those who 'rent' vendors as there is no way that a person who owns the house will want all of their storage taken up so that others make more profit and they lose the use of the premises for whatever they want to store. 

There is really no need to rent vendors with the vendor search. And if someone still feels so inclined, existing vendors are still there for that purpose.

I agree with @ Mervyn on this.  I see it going:

1.  Every house sticks up whatever amount of vendors they can afford the storage on, say 1-2 or 3 and fills them with stuff at ludicrous prices in case they sell as per what Mervyn said. 

This was addressed at the time Mervin said it. Why would they do it? The item count is shared with the house, so there is no incentive to put anything on the vendor unless you are selling it.

Or

2. Every house sticks up vendors to get rid of junk they don't want at seriously low end prices which undercuts everyone til there is zero profit at all and they put merchants out of business by stripping any profit out of an item, but as they are not serious merchants it doesn't really worry them as once they 'dump' their cheap item, they will swap to some other cheap item and kill the market on that too.

This is capitalism, and this is as it should be. If someone is dumping merchandise, nothing is stopping you at buying it and re-listing it at market prices. This is especially easy with the vendor search now. Moreover, nothing is stopping these people form undercutting you now with the existing vendors.

Personally,  I think a sliding scale of daily fee would be better and simpler, so those selling low end items get it cheaper yet the fee for high end items remains as is.

Items up to 20k value could actually incur NO fee, with a sliding scale 1-5% (or whatever the current fee is) applying after that .  Items under 20k would account for most crafted  and newbie items and allow those low profit items to be sold without sending the trader broke on fees.

Just tossing the above out there for consideration. 

While such system might benefit you, it will have little to no effect on revitalizing commerce on small shards. Trading on a shard like Pacific happens in three places: GenChat, Forums, and Atlantic. Where it does not happen is Pacific vendors. And this situation drives players away.

Serious merchants currently make money from the existing vendor system.  It is a fine balancing act moderated by the market but making it so that anyone can toss up a vendor for the cost of 125 items storage has the potential to be disastrous.

Yes you may need to adapt to the new realities. That's what business people do, and no doubt what you had to do in the past in response to changing conditions. Moreover, I think the new vendors ultimately will benefit professional traders like yourself even more that the average player.

Are we debating whether we should get a new type vendor?

Please give us new vendor options!!!

I dont have a castle I dont have a Luna house. My house is still named for rune dropping.  Many of these vendors have been there the whole time.  I welcome any new vendor relations or contracts.  Mine want to be seen.  They deserve more options!

Skett said:

How about a scaling fee any thing 1 mil and under 10% 1 mil to 25 mil 15% 25mil to 50 mil 20% 50 mil plus 25% 100mil and above 35% cap 

and if an item sits on a vendor for more than 45 days it gets hit with the percentage fee and will again in anther 45 days this will stop people from just storing “junk” on them so can we now stop with the lame storage idea already 

okay I just tossed those numbers out there with out much thought to make a point (kinda of like everything I post) 

That seems like too high a percentage to pay to vendors. I don't want to make 100 million and have to give 35 million to the vendor as a fee. I think a flat fee is better, after all we have vendors to make money to get the items we need. Also why would I or anyone store stuff on a vendor if it takes the lockdowns from my home to store it. Seems like extra effort.That is however my opinion.

cobb said:

I hope this doesn't turn into an empty promise like the revamping of the account management page.

boom.

Lol when I see some of the comments I would not wonder when they give up and do nothing.

Iam actually surprised why so many people are against that. 

No one said the old vendors will go.
The idea was to make a second type of vendor which uses house storage plus a small selling tax.

It will allow people to choose which vendor they want or fit better for the shard and item planned to sell. 

However some ppl obviously don't understand that they have a choice.

I personally like the idea

Well said @FinleyGrant

I have done the vendor thing from 60 self run vendors down to just a couple, it's a lot of effort to maintain stock. The one thing I'd like to point out is WHEN a shard gets to the point where NO ONE wants to stock basics or can make a profit, and as population drops on a shard losing vendors is just another nail in the coffin for that shard. It gets very difficult to consider moving to a new shard when one has to be old enough for shard shields or pay transfer fees to import the equipment needed. When you can't even buy a full spellbook or a city rune book it makes the process a much much longer struggle. 

A bit late, I suppose, but just tossing my 2 cents in...

Most shards these days are low population. When some one new does come visiting, the shard can look depressingly dead because they don't have anything on VS that is high or low end. Just the consumables. Imagine a city with nothing but gas stations and grocery stores. No fancy deco items to get you motivated to put down roots, no uber gear to covet and motivate you to level your character. It can often appear, on the surface, that no one does any of the things to get these items. There is nothing to warrant a closer look. They move on.

This new style of vendor seems wonderful to me. A set fee, so all manner of items can be available to everyone at all times. High end deco that is not in high demand but is still valuable. Low end noob stuff that is not stocked cuz it consumes far more in fees than its value. Taking up house storage limit is needed, otherwise the community hoarders will just turn it into the same thing as vendor BOD storage - except they would be bogging down vendor search.

Even if they make these vendors obtainable only via the Store, and even if the fee is something ridiculous like 50% - it is still, imo, a greatly needed option.

Tanager said:

Even if they make these vendors obtainable only via the Store, and even if the fee is something ridiculous like 50% - it is still, imo, a greatly needed option.

Absolutely not. If that’s the case it’d be a waste of developer time and ours as well. 

The fee needs to be reasonable or it won’t be used. Why would I so something with a 50% fee when I can spam in chat or post on forums and pay no fee?

^^^^^THIS^^^^^

Maximus_Neximus said:

Tanager said:

Even if they make these vendors obtainable only via the Store, and even if the fee is something ridiculous like 50% - it is still, imo, a greatly needed option.

Absolutely not. If that’s the case it’d be a waste of developer time and ours as well. 

The fee needs to be reasonable or it won’t be used. Why would I so something with a 50% fee when I can spam in chat or post on forums and pay no fee?

Exactly! Unreasonable fees (and anything much beyond what you pay in your local supermarket is unreasonable) accomplish two things: 1) Cheap stuff like things needed by newbies stops getting sold altogether; 2) High demand stuff moves to the forums or even worse - RMT.

Why a fee anyway? You'r paying for the vendor with house storage. To the people without 3 or more accounts thats much more valuable than gold.
  

My statement was worse case scenario. Even at those insane stats (which I stated as being ridiculous), I would still use it for certain things and everything else would just continue as it is now. For the record, however, yes - a reasonable cost and a reasonable fee would of course be better.

If I put something very cheap on the vendor, like a full spellbook or a basic LRC suit for newcomers, it can sit there and consume FAR MORE than 50% of its price before it sells. Most sellers on low population shards who stock those items do so at a loss, as a community service. Yet not having those basic things readily available makes the shard look deader than it is. So my point was that even at worse case, it would still be a welcome addition. Of course, I do hope for better than that.

If it's a store item for cash, or if its fees are ridiculous, it will be a non starter.   Might as well save the dev time.

Maximus_Neximus said:

This was one of the things posted in the most recent newsletter:

2. Can we have a vendor that does not charge by the hour?

Yes we can come up with an additional vendor that doesn't charge by the hour but instead takes up house storage and charges a commission percentage only when the item is sold. This type of vendor will be in addition to the original style of vendor.

I just want to say, THANK YOU! Please make this a reasonable commission that isn't just focused on taxing the super rich. This could help bring back some regularly stocked player vendors.

Also, consider each item not taking up one full storage slot. I imagine a good number of people will switch to this new vendor. It'd be rough for a player who runs a vendor mall to maintain their one house when it's filled up by players selling items.

Personally, instead, I would like to see THE OPPOSITE....

That is, even if sold at the UO Store for real money, a Vendor that :

- Did NOT take up House Storage at all;

- Could be ALSO placed on Private (not Public) players' Homes on the door steps;

- I am OK with a reasonable, ACCEPTABLE commission charge only when the item is indeed sold.

For such a Vendor, I would have no problem to spend real money at the UO Store of course, if reasonably priced....

We need game additions that do NOT force "more" stress on Houses Storage capacity and, I think, a Vendor that took up House Storage would NOT be players' friendly but, instead, cause more stress on the already difficuly handling of houses' storage capacity....

We need MORE space for storage, not vendors reducing it...

That is at least how I see it.

Its an additional Vendor, so I dont see why it could cause more stress with house storage. You can still use the old vendor. The new vendor will be helpful for low populated shards and we are looking forward for this one to come.

I will make assumptions that with the new vendor, each item would actually need to take up more than 1 house storage slot, or Mervyn’s theory of people filling up vendors with non desirables or placing items at unreasonable prices and impeding searches would run true.

You used the M word...

half stuff should drop shard bound so people will not bring all to atlantic....

Hermione said:

I will make assumptions that with the new vendor, each item would actually need to take up more than 1 house storage slot, or Mervyn’s theory of people filling up vendors with non desirables or placing items at unreasonable prices and impeding searches would run true.

How?? Why would anyone store anything on the vendor if it's taking the same number of slots as using regular storage?

Allow one or two for each friend or co-owner of a house. And let their storage count adds to house item count or a percantage e. G. 50%

Sliss said:

Hermione said:

I will make assumptions that with the new vendor, each item would actually need to take up more than 1 house storage slot, or Mervyn’s theory of people filling up vendors with non desirables or placing items at unreasonable prices and impeding searches would run true.

How?? Why would anyone store anything on the vendor if it's taking the same number of slots as using regular storage?

Hermione said:I would just throw pretty much everything I have on a vendor (at a highish price) until i reach max storage on the offchance someone purchases. Because.. well why not? Nothing to lose

Until you realize you forgot to set an price for item #1431 and someone found it..

Trismegistos said:

Allow one or two for each friend or co-owner of a house. And let their storage count adds to house item count or a percantage e. G. 50%

lol

I came back to the game recently and started a vendor up until I realised that nothing sold very quickly and it was actually costing me gold to keep the vendor so I rapidly removed him. This was especially so with costly items, it was easier to advertise in general chat and sell things like that. What shop in real life pays its employees a daily % of the price of the items in the store to function? 
This is capitalism, and it should work like that in UO. The vendors should be minimum wage employees of the house they are hosted in. If they don't want to accept low pay then replace them with vendor machines :-) 

Bottom line is that vendors are paid too much for what they are selling. Simplest solution is to change what the vendor earns regardless of the value of the items on the vendor. Im pretty sure a Lamborghini salesman doesn't get 25% of each of his sales....
But yes they should take up storage. 

Anyone that cant manage with the storage currently available is just hoarding, then then again, they should be given the option of storing more items if they want to. So maybe introduce items into the UO store that can keep increasing house storage, or even add items as a mega rare boss drop that increases house storage. Or change certain items in houses so they don't count towards storage for the house... 

Lots of options but the bottom line is that vendors cost too much in the current climate within Ultima Online, and it is detrimental to the game

Fenriswolf said:

Anyone that cant manage with the storage currently available is just hoarding, then then again, they should be given the option of storing more items if they want to. So maybe introduce items into the UO store that can keep increasing house storage, or even add items as a mega rare boss drop that increases house storage. Or change certain items in houses so they don't count towards storage for the house... 

Lots of options but the bottom line is that vendors cost too much in the current climate within Ultima Online, and it is detrimental to the game

Hermione said:

Sliss said:

Hermione said:

I will make assumptions that with the new vendor, each item would actually need to take up more than 1 house storage slot, or Mervyn’s theory of people filling up vendors with non desirables or placing items at unreasonable prices and impeding searches would run true.

How?? Why would anyone store anything on the vendor if it's taking the same number of slots as using regular storage?

I don't know about you, but if there was no daily fee, I would just throw pretty much everything I have on a vendor (at a highish price) until i reach max storage on the offchance someone purchases. Because.. well why not? Nothing to lose

And even if put something on at a reasonable price, if the value goes down, i would just not bother to adjust my prices as there's no daily fee.

Nothing to lose? How about your time? Most people have better things to do than spend many hours putting things on the vendor and pricing them on an off chance someone is blind and pays an inflated price. And if you do have the time and desire - there is really no loss. Vendor search is robust enough to filter out overpriced stuff.

I would assume the fee would be charged at the time you put the item on the vendor. Otherwise, the game would have no way of ensuring that the funds are available later when the item is actually purchased. I would like to see players get that fee back if they remove the item, but I don't expect it any more than I expect to get fees back from our current vendors.

With that logic in mind, I am fine with these vendors needing house storage like stewards do, and charging their fee up front. It is the only way to prevent people abusing them for storage. Why do I care about people abusing them for storage? Because there are already houses with 50 vendors storing BODs, and storing equiped gear causing enough lag to effect even my PC.

I am really looking forward to the new vendor style option. The people who don't like it do not need to change a single thing they do currently.

@Tanager if the fee was %25 that fee would be taken out at time of sell so an item for 100 gold would only deposit 75 gold into the vendor and the system would keep the 25 gold for the fee.  I do not get why you would even think the gold would not be there at the time of the sell.

Bilbo said:

@ Tanager if the fee was %25 that fee would be taken out at time of sell so an item for 100 gold would only deposit 75 gold into the vendor and the system would keep the 25 gold for the fee.  I do not get why you would even think the gold would not be there at the time of the sell.

Same though process as duties are paid by the company of origin not a tax on the person who finally buys the item. 

Tim said:

Bilbo said:

@ Tanager if the fee was %25 that fee would be taken out at time of sell so an item for 100 gold would only deposit 75 gold into the vendor and the system would keep the 25 gold for the fee.  I do not get why you would even think the gold would not be there at the time of the sell.

Same though process as duties are paid by the company of origin not a tax on the person who finally buys the item. 

How do you get that the buyer is being taxed?  The cost of the item is 100 gold that was set by the seller, the buyer pays 100 gold and gets the product, the vendor collects 100 gold and deposits 75 gold into its pocket (profit) and deposits 25 gold into the systems pocket (fee).  The seller only keeps 75 gold and pays a fee to the system of 25 gold when the item sells.  No where in this transaction does the buyer pay anything but the asking price.
The seller did not ask 75 for the product and the system did not add a 25 gold tax to the product.

If the seller wants to receive 75 he prices at 100 if he wants 100 the price is 125. Just because it isn’t added at the till doesn’t mean it isn’t taxed. 
There are places where the price on the shelf is what you pay. Taxes may or may not be showed on the receipt. 

Tim said:

If the seller wants to receive 75 he prices at 100 if he wants 100 the price is 125. Just because it isn’t added at the till doesn’t mean it isn’t taxed. 
There are places where the price on the shelf is what you pay. Taxes may or may not be showed on the receipt. 

That is how it works now. I put an item on the vendor, it sits a few days and charges me fees. If I take the item off, and reprice it - I do NOT get any of that fee back. I would be happy if the new system worked differently, but I am not expecting it to, and I am not going to be upset if I don't get something I am not expecting.

Time will tell, it's all vaporware right now anyway...  

I personally would like to put Vendors up in Felucca.

Sales would be slower of course, that is fine, but just like Low Population shards, this new vendor concept would help us have vendors, and create an economy in these areas, in places it has been dying because it is not worth it to run them.

Tim said:

If the seller wants to receive 75 he prices at 100 if he wants 100 the price is 125. Just because it isn’t added at the till doesn’t mean it isn’t taxed. 
There are places where the price on the shelf is what you pay. Taxes may or may not be showed on the receipt. 

That is how real business works, a seller wants to get x amount for his/her product but must pay FEES before it can be placed on a shelf (vendor) so he/she always jacks up the price to cover those fees.  A tax is added on at the time the buyer buys something so lets say %25 tax and the selling price is 100 that means the buyer would pay 125 total. Fees usually allow for overhead, wages, costs, and markup. 

Bilbo said:

Tim said:

If the seller wants to receive 75 he prices at 100 if he wants 100 the price is 125. Just because it isn’t added at the till doesn’t mean it isn’t taxed. 
There are places where the price on the shelf is what you pay. Taxes may or may not be showed on the receipt. 

That is how real business works, a seller wants to get x amount for his/her product but must pay FEES before it can be placed on a shelf (vendor) so he/she always jacks up the price to cover those fees.  A tax is added on at the time the buyer buys something so lets say %25 tax and the selling price is 100 that means the buyer would pay 125 total. Fees usually allow for overhead, wages, costs, and markup. 

Depending on your local laws and accounting practices much of what you call "fees" are or included one form of tax or another. For example property tax or payroll tax on the wages. The tax added at the cash register that you are referring to is commonly call "sales tax", "value added tax" or "GST" depending on you location. Some countries require the price of an item to show all taxes included others don't.  All of which is way off topic.

Note I call any non optional "FEE" you pay to any level of government a tax and no I am not against taxes they are necessary much like prostate exams.

Bilbo said:

Tim said:

If the seller wants to receive 75 he prices at 100 if he wants 100 the price is 125. Just because it isn’t added at the till doesn’t mean it isn’t taxed. 
There are places where the price on the shelf is what you pay. Taxes may or may not be showed on the receipt. 

That is how real business works, a seller wants to get x amount for his/her product but must pay FEES before it can be placed on a shelf (vendor) so he/she always jacks up the price to cover those fees.  A tax is added on at the time the buyer buys something so lets say %25 tax and the selling price is 100 that means the buyer would pay 125 total. Fees usually allow for overhead, wages, costs, and markup. 

I just want to request you stop using a 25% tax for your examples. That’s an absurd number that should not be used. 

What you want us to use math in a totally off topic and meaningless debate?

gotta love the internet, forums gives everyone an opinion no matter what

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) 

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

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.

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?

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.

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

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. 

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?

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

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

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 :-)

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.

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.

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?

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.  

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?

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.

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.

  

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.)

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 :-)

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?   )

hahah was going to quote again but i resisted

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?

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.

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 

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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. 

Tim said:

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. 

The difference is, I can actually viably price stuff cheaper on the commission basis because all my profits aren't being eaten and putting me in the red if it sits for a couple days.

Tim said:

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. 

I work the other way, I price stuff based on how hard it was for me to get it or make it, then put the price up till the resellers stop buying me out.

Sad to say english is my first language. What I was trying to say was I agree with you but I don't think most people will worry about the "commission". The price will be set by what the buyer is willing to pay. That is especially true for casual vendor operators like me. I can see myself putting excess item (I don't need it but it's to good the throw away) on at a price I think is fair and not checking it until I have more items to put on. And that is the way I want it.

About 50 weeks later and still holding onto hope....

Kyronix said:

These are on the radar for this year's series of publishes - which exact one I couldn't tell you yet.

I know you posted this five months ago. But any idea which one it could be in?

Oh yes pretty please 

I love Broadsword's work, but if you make this vendor happen… My heart is yours forever.

Right after the new account management hits in May 

I'm not losing hope yet - Really want this to happen, even if the vendor is a bit more limited somehow so it doesn't make the other one 'useless', I'd be fine with that.

• Put vendor up.
• Place items on vendor and price.
• On 'sale' of item a 10% fee is charged. (ie purchaser pays 1000 gps for item, vendor is credited 900 gps, 100gps charged as fee)
  
• Seller can edit the price of an item ON the vendor by right clicking on it and either increase or decrease price without incurring a fee.
• Items do not count towards storage.
• If the 'seller' removes an item from the vendor after it has been on the vendor for 8 hours a 5%  fee is automatically charged. (ie seller removes 1000 gps item from vendor they  get charged 50 gps which is deducted from - vendors account or players bank account)

• Solves problem of having different types of vendors
• Makes a 10% fee easy to calculate
• Stops people using vendors for storage if they cop a fee every time they remove something.
• If the seller has no funds on the vendor or in the bank then an item cannot be 'removed' from the vendor by the seller, they will either need to buy it at full price or get someone else to.
• Allows editing of the prices by the seller in case stuff is too expensive ,cheap or is mispriced without removing the item from the vendor.
•  When an item has been repriced and removed from the vendor within 24 hours of repricing, then the 5% fee charged will be based on the original sale price.  After 24 hours the 5% fee will be charged on the new price. To stop people repricing just to remove items.
• You can keep reducing the price on an item until it sells and only incur the 10% fee on sale of item. 
  
• No longer have daily fees.
• You can still move items from one vendor directly to an adjacent vendor (as you can currently do) without it affecting the item/price.
  
• Allows this type of vendor to be a rental vendor as well as owner placed vendor.  No house owner wants rental vendors taking up their storage.
• Suitable for small and large population shards.
  

That makes entirely too much sense to ever be implemented in UO.

MissE said:

Reason I sell stuff is I don't have the lockdowns to STORE it so the day vendors take lockdowns that is the end of my vendors and 'hello' to the bin.

All my shops have stuff stored to the max lockdowns in the house to actually 'stock' the vendor, hence why they are always stocked. As an item sells it is replaced from stock.  I have 10-20 vendors on each shop, which hold 125 items each. 

Having thought about it for a while I think there should be ONE type of player vendor (normal and rental vendors) that operate in the following way:

• Put vendor up.
• Place items on vendor and price.
• On 'sale' of item a 10% fee is charged. (ie purchaser pays 1000 gps for item, vendor is credited 900 gps, 100gps charged as fee)
  
• Seller can edit the price of an item ON the vendor by right clicking on it and either increase or decrease price without incurring a fee.
• Items do not count towards storage.
• If the 'seller' removes an item from the vendor after it has been on the vendor for 8 hours a 5%  fee is automatically charged. (ie seller removes 1000 gps item from vendor they  get charged 50 gps which is deducted from - vendors account or players bank account)

Advantages:

• Solves problem of having different types of vendors
• Makes a 10% fee easy to calculate
• Stops people using vendors for storage if they cop a fee every time they remove something.
• If the seller has no funds on the vendor or in the bank then an item cannot be 'removed' from the vendor by the seller, they will either need to buy it at full price or get someone else to.
• Allows editing of the prices by the seller in case stuff is too expensive ,cheap or is mispriced without removing the item from the vendor.
•  When an item has been repriced and removed from the vendor within 24 hours of repricing, then the 5% fee charged will be based on the original sale price.  After 24 hours the 5% fee will be charged on the new price. To stop people repricing just to remove items.
• You can keep reducing the price on an item until it sells and only incur the 10% fee on sale of item. 
  
• No longer have daily fees.
• You can still move items from one vendor directly to an adjacent vendor (as you can currently do) without it affecting the item/price.
  
• Allows this type of vendor to be a rental vendor as well as owner placed vendor.  No house owner wants rental vendors taking up their storage.
• Suitable for small and large population shards.
  

To paraphrase FREE STORAGE 

Place of vendor at high price
When you want to remove
Reduce to 10 gps 
Take off vendor pay 1 gps fee

The real question is what is the problem with having a second (really 3rd) type of vendor? As far as I know no one is suggesting changing or removing the existing vendors.

Tim said: 

To paraphrase FREE STORAGE

Place of vendor at high price
When you want to remove
Reduce to 10 gps 
Take off vendor pay 1 gps fee

The real question is what is the problem with having a second (really 3rd) type of vendor? As far as I know no one is suggesting changing or removing the existing vendors.

• put something on a vendor, pay 10% commission on sale of item
• if you take the item off the vendor pay a 5% holding fee
• same 5% fee applies for 24 hrs after repricing
• reprice items by right clicking on the item in a vendor pack

• Satisfies small shards as the fee is 10% and it doesn't matter how long it sits there you are not gonna get to where the fees are more than the item is worth.
• Satisfies those who rent vendors as the vendor will not take up house storage.
• Satisfies large scale vendor house operators as they don't take storage but also it doesn't matter how long stuff takes to sell so on high turnover shards like Atlantic it will have little affect but on small shards high priced items will not cripple the vendor mall in fees.

We have different opinions on "simple"

I admit that I didn't see the line about 24 hr wait but that wouldn't be a problem outside of luna with vendor search turned off. If we were starting a new game your solution might be better but we aren't.

Problems I see with your "simple" solution are

1. Rather than just coding a new vendor. Basically a new type of house container that sells things for a commission you want them to rewrite the entire vendor code. 
2. If they go with your new single type of vendor they then have the bug phase to go through for all vendors not just the few new type. With a new separate type if there is problems they should be able to freeze or take them off line without taking all vending off line.
3. What about all the existing vendors? Do you grandfather them or write more code to convert them to a new type and hope nothing gets lost? If grandfather why wouldn't you just leave them available. More likely they would have to make everybody take their vendors down then put up new ones. Wouldn't that be fun but less trouble than all the lost item/gold claims.

I really can not see how having 2 types of vendors is complicated. Once again NO ONE is saying do away with the existing vendors. If you are using and are happy with the existing vendor keep it, adding a new type will not affect you. 

Sorry the proposed solution won't help you but my read of what was asked for and what was promised was not the issue you are having. Doing away with all ongoing costs for vendors (weekly gold or storage) to my knowledge was never in the cards. 

If vendor storage should have a weekly charge is a much bigger discussion. Thinking about Broadsword's actions on storage with EJ accounts and storage lockers I don't think they would agree with vendors having no ongoing cost. Be it house storage or gold per week that storage on vendors is going to cost. Not to say I disagree with the idea just that it is a much bigger issue.

Also my point on the programming was that if they just add a new type of vendor it should have no contact with or change to the existing system other than vendor search. So only the new vendor code would have to be dealt with. The old vendor code should not need to be touched. Example when they introduced the Jewelry Box they didn't have to change the code for all the other containers.

I don't think anyone could come up with a single solution that suits everyone. Trying to shoehorn one into an already agree to solution only muddies the water and makes it more likely that nothing gets changed.

Once again I'm sorry the storage based vendor won't help you but it will be of use to me if it ever get add to the game.

Nobody has suggested getting rid of the current system, the way vendors currently work.

Not everyone though runs a house full of vendors and needs every available lockdown to keep up with restocking.

The current vendor fees are killing small vendor houses and have made it nearly impossible for low populated shards to maintain any kind of 24 hour autonomous merchant system.  You can't find nearly anything of significant value on  a vendor nor can you find just plain old everyday useful things or resources.  Vendor fees eat up all the profits.  There is more of an economy in chat than there is using vendors.

I've run mostly small time vendor shops selling BODs, rewards and raw materials and resources.  I don't need 50 vendors in a house to do this nor do I need the entire house's storage to keep them stocked.  I must micro manage each vendor though because otherwise the fees consume nearly all the profit when things sit for days, weeks and longer.  Just running the four vendors I do right now costs me 30k per day.  Sometimes I don't sell anything for a week.

In my situation it would be extremely beneficial to me and to players who would like to purchase what I have to sell, if my vendors took up house storage space and only charged a fee upon sale.  Then I could fill my vendors up with items and not lose a million gold a week in fees.

What has been asked for is another vendor type.  Not a replacement for what already exists.  Leave the dang vendors alone as they currently are and add another option for a vendor that does take up house storage but doesn't charge hourly/daily fees.

If it's gonna cost us house storage space, that should BE the fee.  Not storage and gold...

Vendors should : A) NOT use House Lockdowns or any type of items' count, B ) should be possible to be placed on a Private Home's doorsteps without having to make it Public and C) should only charge their fees if, and only if the item sells.

That is how Vendors should work, to my opinion.

This way, low population Shards could afford having an economy and items be possible to be found there up for sale, also....

A) is fundamental to permit House owners on a low populated Shard, where items sell rarely, not to see their storage capacity be drastically reduced by having Vendors with items that only rarely can sell.

B ) Is important for those players who would like to have some Vendors but do not want to make their House as Public because of that.

C) Is also much important in low Population Shards where items take a much longer time to sell. Unless fees where to be ONLY charged at the time of sale (and not counting how long they remained on the vendor before they actually were able to sell), having fees be charged on a time basis would make it prohibitive for players to put anything up on a Vendor that would take a very long time before it sells because of the low population of that Shard.

This is what I think New Vendors should be like.

Uriah_Heep said:

If it's gonna cost us house storage space, that should BE the fee.  Not storage and gold...

I totally agree but for some reason these devs seem to always think there must be a penalty for every benefit.  I doubt they'll give us any kind of vendor without at least a minimal gold sink.

Rather than make you read the whole thread before you post I'll explain it again. I'm choosing my words carefully so as not to speak for anyone else or discussions I was not personally a part of.

The short version is as I understand it Broadsword was asked for a vendor that used house storage rather than weekly gold in addition to the existing type of vendors. They said yes. 

So house storage and a commission when sold. No ongoing charge for having an item on a vendor with unlimited storage like the old style. If the present vendor fits you needs you can keep using them if not you have another option.

If you want to lobby for a vendor with no weekly charge and no storage cost that is not what was discussed here. Or if I recall correctly discussed and shot down. I would suggest you start a new discussion thread if that is what you are after. I feel mixing that argument into this one would just muddy the water and make it more likely Broadsword will just drop the whole idea.

Tim said:

Rather than make you read the whole thread before you post I'll explain it again. I'm choosing my words carefully so as not to speak for anyone else or discussions I was not personally a part of.

The short version is as I understand it Broadsword was asked for a vendor that used house storage rather than weekly gold in addition to the existing type of vendors. They said yes. 

So house storage and a commission when sold. No ongoing charge for having an item on a vendor with unlimited storage like the old style. If the present vendor fits you needs you can keep using them if not you have another option.

If you want to lobby for a vendor with no weekly charge and no storage cost that is not what was discussed here. Or if I recall correctly discussed and shot down. I would suggest you start a new discussion thread if that is what you are after. I feel mixing that argument into this one would just muddy the water and make it more likely Broadsword will just drop the whole idea.

Ezekiel_Zane said:

What has been asked for is another vendor type.  Not a replacement for what already exists.  Leave the dang vendors alone as they currently are and add another option for a vendor that does take up house storage but doesn't charge hourly/daily fees.

I rate having vendors use storage space right up there with the idea of having puzzles on treasure chests... 

I would not mind if the "new" vendors used house storage, but that is me personally. I would probably use those specifically for my high gold items, and a mixture of the current type for the more basic needs types.. Tools and like simple lrc suits.

I would not mind if the "new" vendors used house storage, but that is me personally. I would probably use those specifically for my high gold items, and a mixture of the standard ones for needful items like exceptional crafting tools arrows bolts and basic lrc suits.

popps said:

C) should only charge their fees if, and only if the item sells.

That's the most important point, and I believe it's a simple change that would make trade flourish in the less populated shards. So much stuff considered 'basic' nowadays is missing there, for example in Drachenfels there are no 120 powerscrolls for sale at all and they are very hard to get for new players. Even full spellbooks or LRC suits are a rarity.

Newly placed vendors hardly last more than a week. Those players that make the effort to keep them up, personally I see them as heroes of the community because I really doubt they are getting any profit from them. 

Trade and economy are one of the main drives on Ultima and I really wish we can see a change soon.

I have played on less populated shards some since I returned, and I must say it's rare to find another player, and the newbie friendly vendors are few and far between. VS helps some, but it is still a challenge.
 I don't have shard shields, and xfer tokens are steep if only to hit another shard and return back to which ever, but I have had some luck either with people going to a shard and coming back or bumping into other friendly players who help out. I still like leveling up alts on random shards, so putting some feet down on a shard like Lake Austin and building a crafter from scratch is a weird hobby. Some advice I would give to others is start with mining and tinkering. Between the two you can leveling everything else up reasonably quick. Carpentry can sit on another character that has like swordsmanship and they can level lj and carpentry til you soul stone that over to the dedicated mule. Tinkering shines tho, as a good back bone skill. Armslore eh.. just let that ride on your mule as they level all the other crafts. Random blurb for the day complete.. *hides*

I like Miss E's idea.

I don't like the idea of vendors using house storage, because it seems like it will be good for those with castles, keeps, and large houses but not for those with moderate to small houses. Large houses already come with the boon of lots of extra storage, giving them better cheaper vendors on top of that is really kicking the dirt into the faces of small house owners. 

Hmm.. maybe have a special "storage" just used for vendors.. like 500 spots the new vendors can use.

It's all my fault. I admit it.

Uriah_Heep said:

post removed by Rorschach

     ^ This. I so agree. 
UO needs to go back to the KISS concept...

Yes keep it simple.

Vendor takes up house storage with a one time sales tax.

If that isn't to your taste keep using the existing vendors with unlimited storage.

PS I like the new Tmaps 

Coming Soon*

Wondering about the acc mgmt.

seems like the simple fix would be to have the vendors inventory count toward its owners house storage and not the house storage where its placed.

North_LS said:

seems like the simple fix would be to have the vendors inventory count toward its owners house storage and not the house storage where its placed.

Still haven't seen anything to indicate they are removing the existing type of vendor. So I don't think rental vendors will be affected by the new type. 

But we will see in a week or two.

Tim said:

North_LS said:

seems like the simple fix would be to have the vendors inventory count toward its owners house storage and not the house storage where its placed.

Still haven't seen anything to indicate they are removing the existing type of vendor. So I don't think rental vendors will be affected by the new type. 

But we will see in a week or two.

I'd feel the same way except 

Now I have to finally get around to cleaning my house to make room 

Tim said:

I'd feel the same way except 

Now I have to finally get around to cleaning my house to make room 

We don’t for sure what the current implementation looks like. So I wouldn’t go too crazy trashing stuff until we know for sure. 

Agreed, now I can maybe sell some things finally!  Never had excess gold to just feed a vendor to sell a few things.  Looking forward to it  🙂

Put me in for new vendors should NOT use house storage. I run a lot of vendors and at least 10 are aimed at new players. My vendors are always stocked. This would kill my storage. A simple *gasps* solution would be a set fee when item sells or even when stocked. Lets not overthink this...

Maximus_Neximus said:

Tim said:

I'd feel the same way except 

Now I have to finally get around to cleaning my house to make room 

We don’t for sure what the current implementation looks like. So I wouldn’t go too crazy trashing stuff until we know for sure. 

Once again trying to be a wit and getting half way there.  🙂

But yes don't panic or get carried away until we see what is actually implemented and once again if the existing vendors work for you it shouldn't change anything for you.

They want you to use all house storage available, bc if you dont have enough space, means you need another house, another house means another subs, win win

Tim said:

But yes don't panic or get carried away until we see what is actually implemented and once again if the existing vendors work for you it shouldn't change anything for you.

  It wouldn't be UO if people didn't panic and threaten to close all their accounts over proposed ideas that no one knows the specifics.

This is finally on test center!!! Please go check it out and leave your feedback in the test forum. 

@Norry started a thread already and I think it may be easier for the deva to follow one thread instead of many. 
https://forum.uo.com/discussion/4714/commision-vendors#latest

In an effort to aggregate feedback, please use the TC thread.  Thank you for the continued feedback.
https://forum.uo.com/discussion/4714/commision-vendors#latest