Vendors and Owner's rights

[Jack]

Issues like this are really difficult. Although something like this seems really common sense, and I would agree home owners should have more control over what is in their house (re: vendors), it's not a mechanic which existed in this era. Maybe OSI GMs would have complied and removed vendors from houses, and if we were to take such a route it would make more sense just to automate that than have staff need to take care of such issues.

However it's always been my intention to keep the shard with "full felucca rules" and not mess with things that can be considered grief, as they're things that were possible in the full sandbox experience that was UO 1999.

There are lots things I could mess with to make player's lives easier, that would probably have long term benefit toward player retention, but I don't do them, because that's just not how the game was. I want to keep that integrity.

[Pringles]

Issues like this are really difficult. Although something like this seems really common sense, and I would agree home owners should have more control over what is in their house (re: vendors), it's not a mechanic which existed in this era. Maybe OSI GMs would have complied and removed vendors from houses, and if we were to take such a route it would make more sense just to automate that than have staff need to take care of such issues.

However it's always been my intention to keep the shard with "full felucca rules" and not mess with things that can be considered grief, as they're things that were possible in the full sandbox experience that was UO 1999.

There are lots things I could mess with to make player's lives easier, that would probably have long term benefit toward player retention, but I don't do them, because that's just not how the game was. I want to keep that integrity.

Jack, the other server I am referring to isn't OSI, but Second Age. I did not know their vendorsystem isn't era accurate.
To me, I don't see a reason why a public house should be treated differently than a private house.

Griefing is part of UO, I totally understand and accept that. Excessive griefing is where I hope, staff will step in.

[Wiz Kid]

Issues like this are really difficult. Although something like this seems really common sense, and I would agree home owners should have more control over what is in their house (re: vendors), it's not a mechanic which existed in this era. Maybe OSI GMs would have complied and removed vendors from houses, and if we were to take such a route it would make more sense just to automate that than have staff need to take care of such issues.

However it's always been my intention to keep the shard with "full felucca rules" and not mess with things that can be considered grief, as they're things that were possible in the full sandbox experience that was UO 1999.

There are lots things I could mess with to make player's lives easier, that would probably have long term benefit toward player retention, but I don't do them, because that's just not how the game was. I want to keep that integrity.

Can my vendor be full felucca rules again? Sorry to distract the topic at hand!

[Varak]

15 to 8 so far for yes's. Woo!

[Wiz Kid]

I hope this doesn't turn into a popularity contest & rather votes based off of what people think is actually better for the server. To me, hijacking someones house by using one of the 15 character slots they have is a bit ridiculous for anything long term. How many of us had 3 accounts in 98/99?

[Varak]

I absolutely hate empty vendors, moreso than empty NPC's. Anything that cuts down on empty vendors i am for. Being able to remove an empty vendor from your vendor house would certainly help with that. I wish they would decay like houses from lack of use, heh heh. I'm a settler though. I'm happy to settle for house owners being able to kick a vendor.

[Jack]

If you think being able to remove vendors is era accurate, I'll have to do some looking into it to find out. I thought it was just flat out not part of the era.

[Apoc]

If we can't get this to go that way with owners being able to remove etc perhap's we could look at raising the vendor daily cost as it stands right now it's around 8gp per day if this was raised a bit would give us a better chance of vendor decaying.

[Varak]

The best vendor houses (in my opinion) are ones that have 5-15 vendors, with most being run by individual people. Trying to keep every vendor full when you are running them all yourself is a full time job with decent sell through. With individual vendors run by individual people, it’s much easier to keep up with the vendor and enjoy ALL aspects of the game. It really is a great quality of life option for most players. You’ve got a shop that is fully stocked most of the time. Every one running a vendor is making some decent coin, and gets to have a crafting hobby if they want. Markets start opening up for resource purchases (gathering and crafting are two different things). Players have a reliable source for all their needs and wants. Everyone wins.

Having a mechanic (of some sort) in place makes running large vendor house viable. I had a spot at UOLL provisions selling bandages. When I decided to shut down my vendor he had 843 Earth days of gold on him. I pulled him up to open the spot and because I hate being responsible for an empty vendor. I could have very easily just left him there which is quite frankly is what usually ends up happening…for nearly 3 years… The owner of the patio wouldn’t be happy. The general public would suffer (wasted time and inconvenience). It would have been a net negative to the shard if I didn’t care or wanted to be a tool. It’s essentially that general apathy we are trying to resolve. Some mechanic is needed so the owner of the house doesn’t have an empty vendor sitting there for 3 years.

I don’t know if this matters, but the second age shard didn’t delete/remove a vendor. The staff would move the vendor to a tile close by but outside of the actual structure. You would see a vendor just standing on open ground 4 or 5 tiles from the structure. This mechanic allowed people to actually be able to sell vendor houses, and the new owner of the house could remove the old vendors if a deal couldn’t be struck, etc. It’s not ideal, but it did make running a vendor house viable. I’d still prefer the removal of the vendor, but this was a workable solution that I thought was at least worth mentioning.

[Boss]

The most I could possibly get behind regarding this situation would be the ability for a house owner to move player vendors within their property as desired. In the event that a player has been tricked or just no longer gets along in the relationship, the owner could just hide the vendor out of reach until they decay.

Otherwise I think nothing should change. This is one of the precious pieces of Felucca that needs to remain unsullied by Trammelites. If you can't be sure who you are adding to your house's friends list, that's a risk you are taking. Removal of that risk simply paves the path to candy land.

They need an option to collect their gold and their items, then I would agree to moving vendor. What if they have GOLD and items on the vendor IE rares that they need to collect before it decays? Also this would just lead to another GRIEF... someone places rares on vendor, i move vendor out of reach.. items decay and owner of vendor lose said items. Then Owner of vendor bum rushes Jack with more BULLSHIT.