Vendor Balance

popps

Lord_Frodo said:

Larisa said:

Find a trustworthy person, that's what I do.

My friend has an Atlantic House, I put the items I want on my vendor in her garden shed with a book with the price I want. She puts them on a commission vendor for me.

TY for ANOTHER option.

I entirely disagree.

I would way much rather prefer a more final and less prone to risk and trustworthiness solution from the Developers : the Design of a Rentable Commission Vendor....

It can be done, to my opinion, all it needs, is the decision to make it to be taken, and then, of course, do it.....

It would be a clear enhancement for players' gameplay and work done towards a better enjoyment of UO for players, IMHO, so why shouldn't it be done ?

Victim_Of_Siege

popps said:

Larisa said:

Find a trustworthy person, that's what I do.

My friend has an Atlantic House, I put the items I want on my vendor in her garden shed with a book with the price I want. She puts them on a commission vendor for me.

Why on earth should players go through all of this, with a high level of trustworthyness to have to be involved which many times can very well be well placed, but at times it might not be, when all the Developers should (and, to my opinion, could do...) would be to design Rentable Commission Vendors with a CAP of the items (to be subtracted from the total of available lockdowns of the House....) which the vendors could hold that the House owner and the player renting the vendor out, would need to agree upon ?

Because some people have friends that they trust, if you don’t then do not use this option. 

Lord_Frodo

popps said:

Larisa said:

Find a trustworthy person, that's what I do.

My friend has an Atlantic House, I put the items I want on my vendor in her garden shed with a book with the price I want. She puts them on a commission vendor for me.

Why on earth should players go through all of this, with a high level of trustworthyness to have to be involved which many times can very well be well placed, but at times it might not be, when all the Developers should (and, to my opinion, could do...) would be to design Rentable Commission Vendors with a CAP of the items (to be subtracted from the total of available lockdowns of the House....) which the vendors could hold that the House owner and the player renting the vendor out, would need to agree upon ?

Why is it you think everything is so EASY, are you a programmer?  What games have you designed?  You like the OP thinks UO should bow down to your every request.  The OP designed his house so he could not have vendors in Fel, that was his choice and now he has to live with it.

Lord_Frodo

popps said:

Lord_Frodo said:

Larisa said:

Find a trustworthy person, that's what I do.

My friend has an Atlantic House, I put the items I want on my vendor in her garden shed with a book with the price I want. She puts them on a commission vendor for me.

TY for ANOTHER option.

I entirely disagree.

I would way much rather prefer a more final and less prone to risk and trustworthiness solution from the Developers : the Design of a Rentable Commission Vendor....

It can be done, to my opinion, all it needs, is the decision to make it to be taken, and then, of course, do it.....

It would be a clear enhancement for players' gameplay and work done towards a better enjoyment of UO for players, IMHO, so why shouldn't it be done ?

Guess what, to bad.  To your opinion anything and everything can be done.  Go design a game and come back and let us know how it went.

Grimbeard

@popps the bottom line is this is an mmo player interaction is the desired result not more ways for us to not interact 

popps

Victim_Of_Siege said:

popps said:

Larisa said:

Find a trustworthy person, that's what I do.

My friend has an Atlantic House, I put the items I want on my vendor in her garden shed with a book with the price I want. She puts them on a commission vendor for me.

Why on earth should players go through all of this, with a high level of trustworthyness to have to be involved which many times can very well be well placed, but at times it might not be, when all the Developers should (and, to my opinion, could do...) would be to design Rentable Commission Vendors with a CAP of the items (to be subtracted from the total of available lockdowns of the House....) which the vendors could hold that the House owner and the player renting the vendor out, would need to agree upon ?

Because some people have friends that they trust, if you don’t then do not use this option. 

That is not the point.

The game should offer valid and viable alternatives to any and all players whether they may or not have trusted friends, to my opinion....

Point is, that a UO player might have plenty of trusted friends in UO which they play with on their "main" Shard where they have their homes or what not, but NOT necessarily on a secondary Shard that they also play, where they cannot have another house to host Commission Vendors because of the house already existing on their main Shard....

And their trusted, good friends, could also not be able to have a house on that other, secondary Shard because they already have one on some other Shard...

Here, to my opinion, is where a Designed Rentable Commission Vendor could become very effective, much needed, usefull, and a great enhancement towards increasing players' enjoyment of UO.

So, it has nothing at all to do, to my opinion, whether a UO player may or not have trusted friends playing the game in general but, rather, with the fact that it could very well be that on a given, secondary Shard that the player plays and where he/she needs a Commission Vendor, those trusted friends cannot have a house (and therefore have a Commission Vendor) because they already have a House on some other Shard.

That is at least the way I see it.

Victim_Of_Siege

popps said:

Victim_Of_Siege said:

popps said:

Larisa said:

Find a trustworthy person, that's what I do.

My friend has an Atlantic House, I put the items I want on my vendor in her garden shed with a book with the price I want. She puts them on a commission vendor for me.

Why on earth should players go through all of this, with a high level of trustworthyness to have to be involved which many times can very well be well placed, but at times it might not be, when all the Developers should (and, to my opinion, could do...) would be to design Rentable Commission Vendors with a CAP of the items (to be subtracted from the total of available lockdowns of the House....) which the vendors could hold that the House owner and the player renting the vendor out, would need to agree upon ?

Because some people have friends that they trust, if you don’t then do not use this option. 

That is not the point.

The game should offer valid and viable alternatives to any and all players whether they may or not have trusted friends, to my opinion....

Point is, that a UO player might have plenty of trusted friends in UO which they play with on their "main" Shard where they have their homes or what not, but NOT necessarily on a secondary Shard that they also play, where they cannot have another house to host Commission Vendors because of the house already existing on their main Shard....

And their trusted, good friends, could also not be able to have a house on that other, secondary Shard because they already have one on some other Shard...

Here, to my opinion, is where a Designed Rentable Commission Vendor could become very effective, much needed, usefull, and a great enhancement towards increasing players' enjoyment of UO.

So, it has nothing at all to do, to my opinion, whether a UO player may or not have trusted friends playing the game in general but, rather, with the fact that it could very well be that on a given, secondary Shard that the player plays and where he/she needs a Commission Vendor, those trusted friends cannot have a house (and therefore have a Commission Vendor) because they already have a House on some other Shard.

That is at least the way I see it.

They do offer Valid and viable alternatives, many of which have been listed here. Let's go through them, Shall we?

1. Auction Safe.
2. Spam in Chat.
3. Regular vendor.
4. having a trusted friend put items in their commision vendor for you.
5. Another account.
6. Player can change house security and design so they can utilize a commission vendor.

These are all Valid and Viable options on this particular subject by the OP, and whether you think they are good enough or not is irrelevant, they are choices that are available.

At least this is how I see it.

Tim

More information needed

1. How many rental vendors are there at the moment with items on them and when was the last time their stock was updated.
2. How many Commission vendors with items on them and when was the last time stock was updated.
3. How many players could be realistically expected to make use of this new type of vendor.
4. A realistic estimate of the time and effort to implement 
5. The likely hood of braking something in the already wobbly housing software.

popps

Victim_Of_Siege said:

popps said:

Victim_Of_Siege said:

popps said:

Larisa said:

Find a trustworthy person, that's what I do.

My friend has an Atlantic House, I put the items I want on my vendor in her garden shed with a book with the price I want. She puts them on a commission vendor for me.

Why on earth should players go through all of this, with a high level of trustworthyness to have to be involved which many times can very well be well placed, but at times it might not be, when all the Developers should (and, to my opinion, could do...) would be to design Rentable Commission Vendors with a CAP of the items (to be subtracted from the total of available lockdowns of the House....) which the vendors could hold that the House owner and the player renting the vendor out, would need to agree upon ?

Because some people have friends that they trust, if you don’t then do not use this option. 

That is not the point.

The game should offer valid and viable alternatives to any and all players whether they may or not have trusted friends, to my opinion....

Point is, that a UO player might have plenty of trusted friends in UO which they play with on their "main" Shard where they have their homes or what not, but NOT necessarily on a secondary Shard that they also play, where they cannot have another house to host Commission Vendors because of the house already existing on their main Shard....

And their trusted, good friends, could also not be able to have a house on that other, secondary Shard because they already have one on some other Shard...

Here, to my opinion, is where a Designed Rentable Commission Vendor could become very effective, much needed, usefull, and a great enhancement towards increasing players' enjoyment of UO.

So, it has nothing at all to do, to my opinion, whether a UO player may or not have trusted friends playing the game in general but, rather, with the fact that it could very well be that on a given, secondary Shard that the player plays and where he/she needs a Commission Vendor, those trusted friends cannot have a house (and therefore have a Commission Vendor) because they already have a House on some other Shard.

That is at least the way I see it.

They do offer Valid and viable alternatives, many of which have been listed here. Let's go through them, Shall we?

1. Auction Safe.
2. Spam in Chat.
3. Regular vendor.
4. having a trusted friend put items in their commision vendor for you.
5. Another account.
6. Player can change house security and design so they can utilize a commission vendor.

These are all Valid and Viable options on this particular subject by the OP, and whether you think they are good enough or not is irrelevant, they are choices that are available.

At least this is how I see it.

Well, I see it differently....

Auction Safe.
It is not the same thing nor it works like a Commission Vendor does... to some it might be an alternative to a Commission Vendor, but to other UO players, it could well not be.

Spam in Chat.
As mentioned, this can be very much time consuming and, to some players, perhaps also be boring... who knows, perhaps even so boring to become detrimental to their enjoyment of their UO gameplay....

Regular vendor.
They work quite differently as Commission Vendors.... why do we have Commission Vendors in UO, if Regular Vendors can fullfil all of UO players' needs ?
Commission Vendors are very much usefull, to my opinion, on Shards less populated where items may take a considerable higher time before they sell because of a more reduced players' population there. Clearly, to my viewing, a Regular Vendor charging daily fees sometimes cannot be as viable as a Commission Vendor who, instead, only charges a fee when the sale takes place.

having a trusted friend put items in their commision vendor for you.
I think I answered this point in my previous post. A UO player might have a lot of trusted friends in the game only, NOT on a "secondary" Shard which they could play also on, and where they might need a Commission Vendor. So, even if they have trusted friends in the game, they still might not have trusted friends on that "other" Shard on which they were to need to use a Commission Vendor....

Another account.
Not everyone can afford multiple accounts for a game to just place another house on a secondary shard which they play on, because they might need to use a Commission vendor there.... And this because the game does not offer a "Rentable" Commission Vendor ?
Hmmmmmm...........

Player can change house security and design so they can utilize a commission vendor.
That might work if the need for a Commission Vendor was to exist on the same Shard where that UO player has his/her UO house (usually called the "Main" playing Shard....).
But what if, that need for a Commission Vendor was to exist for a Shard "other " then that "Main" Shard where the UO player does not and cannot have a second house ?
This alternative would not be viable, I imagine....

So, I need to again point out how, none of the mentioned alternatives can really be a valid one as compared to having a Designed "Rentable" Commission Vendor which, instead, would "fit in" quite nicely, to my opinion, to accomodate most needs which UO players could have on secondary Shards which they might play on, other then their "Main" Shard on which they have their UO house.

Grimbeard

Ok @popps if you can tell us in ten words or less exactly what you want Pawain will email Mesanna 

Pawain

He wants everything free and easy but be worth so much he needs a commission vendor to sell the items.

I won't write that email.

CovenantX

popps said:

Spam in Chat.
As mentioned, this can be very much time consuming and, to some players, perhaps also be boring... who knows, perhaps even so boring to become detrimental to their enjoyment of their UO gameplay....

   This is actually the fastest option, with no 'tax'.  if it's time-consuming, your prices are too high.

Victim_Of_Siege

popps said:

Victim_Of_Siege said:

popps said:

Victim_Of_Siege said:

popps said:

Larisa said:

Find a trustworthy person, that's what I do.

My friend has an Atlantic House, I put the items I want on my vendor in her garden shed with a book with the price I want. She puts them on a commission vendor for me.

Why on earth should players go through all of this, with a high level of trustworthyness to have to be involved which many times can very well be well placed, but at times it might not be, when all the Developers should (and, to my opinion, could do...) would be to design Rentable Commission Vendors with a CAP of the items (to be subtracted from the total of available lockdowns of the House....) which the vendors could hold that the House owner and the player renting the vendor out, would need to agree upon ?

Because some people have friends that they trust, if you don’t then do not use this option. 

That is not the point.

The game should offer valid and viable alternatives to any and all players whether they may or not have trusted friends, to my opinion....

Point is, that a UO player might have plenty of trusted friends in UO which they play with on their "main" Shard where they have their homes or what not, but NOT necessarily on a secondary Shard that they also play, where they cannot have another house to host Commission Vendors because of the house already existing on their main Shard....

And their trusted, good friends, could also not be able to have a house on that other, secondary Shard because they already have one on some other Shard...

Here, to my opinion, is where a Designed Rentable Commission Vendor could become very effective, much needed, usefull, and a great enhancement towards increasing players' enjoyment of UO.

So, it has nothing at all to do, to my opinion, whether a UO player may or not have trusted friends playing the game in general but, rather, with the fact that it could very well be that on a given, secondary Shard that the player plays and where he/she needs a Commission Vendor, those trusted friends cannot have a house (and therefore have a Commission Vendor) because they already have a House on some other Shard.

That is at least the way I see it.

They do offer Valid and viable alternatives, many of which have been listed here. Let's go through them, Shall we?

1. Auction Safe.
2. Spam in Chat.
3. Regular vendor.
4. having a trusted friend put items in their commision vendor for you.
5. Another account.
6. Player can change house security and design so they can utilize a commission vendor.

These are all Valid and Viable options on this particular subject by the OP, and whether you think they are good enough or not is irrelevant, they are choices that are available.

At least this is how I see it.

Well, I see it differently....

Auction Safe.
It is not the same thing nor it works like a Commission Vendor does... to some it might be an alternative to a Commission Vendor, but to other UO players, it could well not be.

Spam in Chat.
As mentioned, this can be very much time consuming and, to some players, perhaps also be boring... who knows, perhaps even so boring to become detrimental to their enjoyment of their UO gameplay....

Regular vendor.
They work quite differently as Commission Vendors.... why do we have Commission Vendors in UO, if Regular Vendors can fullfil all of UO players' needs ?
Commission Vendors are very much usefull, to my opinion, on Shards less populated where items may take a considerable higher time before they sell because of a more reduced players' population there. Clearly, to my viewing, a Regular Vendor charging daily fees sometimes cannot be as viable as a Commission Vendor who, instead, only charges a fee when the sale takes place.

having a trusted friend put items in their commision vendor for you.
I think I answered this point in my previous post. A UO player might have a lot of trusted friends in the game only, NOT on a "secondary" Shard which they could play also on, and where they might need a Commission Vendor. So, even if they have trusted friends in the game, they still might not have trusted friends on that "other" Shard on which they were to need to use a Commission Vendor....

Another account.
Not everyone can afford multiple accounts for a game to just place another house on a secondary shard which they play on, because they might need to use a Commission vendor there.... And this because the game does not offer a "Rentable" Commission Vendor ?
Hmmmmmm...........

Player can change house security and design so they can utilize a commission vendor.
That might work if the need for a Commission Vendor was to exist on the same Shard where that UO player has his/her UO house (usually called the "Main" playing Shard....).
But what if, that need for a Commission Vendor was to exist for a Shard "other " then that "Main" Shard where the UO player does not and cannot have a second house ?
This alternative would not be viable, I imagine....

So, I need to again point out how, none of the mentioned alternatives can really be a valid one as compared to having a Designed "Rentable" Commission Vendor which, instead, would "fit in" quite nicely, to my opinion, to accomodate most needs which UO players could have on secondary Shards which they might play on, other then their "Main" Shard on which they have their UO house.

Poops, you can spend time or money in this game (or both) your complaint about taking too much time is invalid because there are options that take very little time, just money. and there are options that take little time, just money. and there is even an option that takes neither, just them changing their house. So at the end of the day, there are plenty of options and your whines are irrellevant. have a wonderful day. 

Grimbeard

Victim_Of_Siege said:

popps said:

Victim_Of_Siege said:

popps said:

Victim_Of_Siege said:

popps said:

Larisa said:

Find a trustworthy person, that's what I do.

My friend has an Atlantic House, I put the items I want on my vendor in her garden shed with a book with the price I want. She puts them on a commission vendor for me.

Why on earth should players go through all of this, with a high level of trustworthyness to have to be involved which many times can very well be well placed, but at times it might not be, when all the Developers should (and, to my opinion, could do...) would be to design Rentable Commission Vendors with a CAP of the items (to be subtracted from the total of available lockdowns of the House....) which the vendors could hold that the House owner and the player renting the vendor out, would need to agree upon ?

Because some people have friends that they trust, if you don’t then do not use this option. 

That is not the point.

The game should offer valid and viable alternatives to any and all players whether they may or not have trusted friends, to my opinion....

Point is, that a UO player might have plenty of trusted friends in UO which they play with on their "main" Shard where they have their homes or what not, but NOT necessarily on a secondary Shard that they also play, where they cannot have another house to host Commission Vendors because of the house already existing on their main Shard....

And their trusted, good friends, could also not be able to have a house on that other, secondary Shard because they already have one on some other Shard...

Here, to my opinion, is where a Designed Rentable Commission Vendor could become very effective, much needed, usefull, and a great enhancement towards increasing players' enjoyment of UO.

So, it has nothing at all to do, to my opinion, whether a UO player may or not have trusted friends playing the game in general but, rather, with the fact that it could very well be that on a given, secondary Shard that the player plays and where he/she needs a Commission Vendor, those trusted friends cannot have a house (and therefore have a Commission Vendor) because they already have a House on some other Shard.

That is at least the way I see it.

They do offer Valid and viable alternatives, many of which have been listed here. Let's go through them, Shall we?

1. Auction Safe.
2. Spam in Chat.
3. Regular vendor.
4. having a trusted friend put items in their commision vendor for you.
5. Another account.
6. Player can change house security and design so they can utilize a commission vendor.

These are all Valid and Viable options on this particular subject by the OP, and whether you think they are good enough or not is irrelevant, they are choices that are available.

At least this is how I see it.

Well, I see it differently....

Auction Safe.
It is not the same thing nor it works like a Commission Vendor does... to some it might be an alternative to a Commission Vendor, but to other UO players, it could well not be.

Spam in Chat.
As mentioned, this can be very much time consuming and, to some players, perhaps also be boring... who knows, perhaps even so boring to become detrimental to their enjoyment of their UO gameplay....

Regular vendor.
They work quite differently as Commission Vendors.... why do we have Commission Vendors in UO, if Regular Vendors can fullfil all of UO players' needs ?
Commission Vendors are very much usefull, to my opinion, on Shards less populated where items may take a considerable higher time before they sell because of a more reduced players' population there. Clearly, to my viewing, a Regular Vendor charging daily fees sometimes cannot be as viable as a Commission Vendor who, instead, only charges a fee when the sale takes place.

having a trusted friend put items in their commision vendor for you.
I think I answered this point in my previous post. A UO player might have a lot of trusted friends in the game only, NOT on a "secondary" Shard which they could play also on, and where they might need a Commission Vendor. So, even if they have trusted friends in the game, they still might not have trusted friends on that "other" Shard on which they were to need to use a Commission Vendor....

Another account.
Not everyone can afford multiple accounts for a game to just place another house on a secondary shard which they play on, because they might need to use a Commission vendor there.... And this because the game does not offer a "Rentable" Commission Vendor ?
Hmmmmmm...........

Player can change house security and design so they can utilize a commission vendor.
That might work if the need for a Commission Vendor was to exist on the same Shard where that UO player has his/her UO house (usually called the "Main" playing Shard....).
But what if, that need for a Commission Vendor was to exist for a Shard "other " then that "Main" Shard where the UO player does not and cannot have a second house ?
This alternative would not be viable, I imagine....

So, I need to again point out how, none of the mentioned alternatives can really be a valid one as compared to having a Designed "Rentable" Commission Vendor which, instead, would "fit in" quite nicely, to my opinion, to accomodate most needs which UO players could have on secondary Shards which they might play on, other then their "Main" Shard on which they have their UO house.

Poops, you can spend time or money in this game (or both) your complaint about taking too much time is invalid because there are options that take very little time, just money. and there are options that take little time, just money. and there is even an option that takes neither, just them changing their house. So at the end of the day, there are plenty of options and your whines are irrellevant. have a wonderful day. 

Cheese is good

CovenantX

Grimbeard said:

Victim_Of_Siege said:

popps said:

Victim_Of_Siege said:

popps said:

Victim_Of_Siege said:

popps said:

Cheese is good

   ...as long as it doesn't come with whine.

Victim_Of_Siege

Victim_Of_Siege said:

popps said:

Victim_Of_Siege said:

popps said:

Victim_Of_Siege said:

popps said:

Larisa said:

Find a trustworthy person, that's what I do.

My friend has an Atlantic House, I put the items I want on my vendor in her garden shed with a book with the price I want. She puts them on a commission vendor for me.

Why on earth should players go through all of this, with a high level of trustworthyness to have to be involved which many times can very well be well placed, but at times it might not be, when all the Developers should (and, to my opinion, could do...) would be to design Rentable Commission Vendors with a CAP of the items (to be subtracted from the total of available lockdowns of the House....) which the vendors could hold that the House owner and the player renting the vendor out, would need to agree upon ?

Because some people have friends that they trust, if you don’t then do not use this option. 

That is not the point.

The game should offer valid and viable alternatives to any and all players whether they may or not have trusted friends, to my opinion....

Point is, that a UO player might have plenty of trusted friends in UO which they play with on their "main" Shard where they have their homes or what not, but NOT necessarily on a secondary Shard that they also play, where they cannot have another house to host Commission Vendors because of the house already existing on their main Shard....

And their trusted, good friends, could also not be able to have a house on that other, secondary Shard because they already have one on some other Shard...

Here, to my opinion, is where a Designed Rentable Commission Vendor could become very effective, much needed, usefull, and a great enhancement towards increasing players' enjoyment of UO.

So, it has nothing at all to do, to my opinion, whether a UO player may or not have trusted friends playing the game in general but, rather, with the fact that it could very well be that on a given, secondary Shard that the player plays and where he/she needs a Commission Vendor, those trusted friends cannot have a house (and therefore have a Commission Vendor) because they already have a House on some other Shard.

That is at least the way I see it.

They do offer Valid and viable alternatives, many of which have been listed here. Let's go through them, Shall we?

1. Auction Safe.
2. Spam in Chat.
3. Regular vendor.
4. having a trusted friend put items in their commision vendor for you.
5. Another account.
6. Player can change house security and design so they can utilize a commission vendor.

These are all Valid and Viable options on this particular subject by the OP, and whether you think they are good enough or not is irrelevant, they are choices that are available.

At least this is how I see it.

Well, I see it differently....

Auction Safe.
It is not the same thing nor it works like a Commission Vendor does... to some it might be an alternative to a Commission Vendor, but to other UO players, it could well not be.

Spam in Chat.
As mentioned, this can be very much time consuming and, to some players, perhaps also be boring... who knows, perhaps even so boring to become detrimental to their enjoyment of their UO gameplay....

Regular vendor.
They work quite differently as Commission Vendors.... why do we have Commission Vendors in UO, if Regular Vendors can fullfil all of UO players' needs ?
Commission Vendors are very much usefull, to my opinion, on Shards less populated where items may take a considerable higher time before they sell because of a more reduced players' population there. Clearly, to my viewing, a Regular Vendor charging daily fees sometimes cannot be as viable as a Commission Vendor who, instead, only charges a fee when the sale takes place.

having a trusted friend put items in their commision vendor for you.
I think I answered this point in my previous post. A UO player might have a lot of trusted friends in the game only, NOT on a "secondary" Shard which they could play also on, and where they might need a Commission Vendor. So, even if they have trusted friends in the game, they still might not have trusted friends on that "other" Shard on which they were to need to use a Commission Vendor....

Another account.
Not everyone can afford multiple accounts for a game to just place another house on a secondary shard which they play on, because they might need to use a Commission vendor there.... And this because the game does not offer a "Rentable" Commission Vendor ?
Hmmmmmm...........

Player can change house security and design so they can utilize a commission vendor.
That might work if the need for a Commission Vendor was to exist on the same Shard where that UO player has his/her UO house (usually called the "Main" playing Shard....).
But what if, that need for a Commission Vendor was to exist for a Shard "other " then that "Main" Shard where the UO player does not and cannot have a second house ?
This alternative would not be viable, I imagine....

So, I need to again point out how, none of the mentioned alternatives can really be a valid one as compared to having a Designed "Rentable" Commission Vendor which, instead, would "fit in" quite nicely, to my opinion, to accomodate most needs which UO players could have on secondary Shards which they might play on, other then their "Main" Shard on which they have their UO house.

Poops, you can spend time or money in this game (or both) your complaint about taking too much time is invalid because there are options that take very little time, just money. and there are options that take little time, just money. little money, just time and there is even an option that takes neither, just them changing their house. So at the end of the day, there are plenty of options and your whines are irrellevant. have a wonderful day. 

Of course i made a mistake but I i corrected the mistake in this quote

Lord_Frodo

The time @popps spent on here with his BLAH BLAH BLAH he could have sold a few items in Gen Chat.  I love how @popps #1 complaint is time in game with all the time waisted here writing novels.

popps

CovenantX said:

popps said:

Spam in Chat.
As mentioned, this can be very much time consuming and, to some players, perhaps also be boring... who knows, perhaps even so boring to become detrimental to their enjoyment of their UO gameplay....

   This is actually the fastest option, with no 'tax'.  if it's time-consuming, your prices are too high.

Or, perhaps, the Shard simply has a low population and not many players logged in at that given time ?
Or, perhaps, being UO a game played by players worldwide, perhaps the player needing to sell a given item for which a Rentable Commodity Vendor could come very handy, is from another world time zone to that of the Shard and, thus, is unable to log in to spam the sale in chat at that Shard's prime playing time when more players might be logged in ?

All considerations which, to my viewing, lead to conclude how a Rentable Commission Vendor would be the best solution to enhance players' enjoyment of UO rather then having players having to find alternative solutions which cannot be as valid and as effective as a Rentable Commission Vendor....

Seth

Pawain said:

Arnold7 said:

Always thought this rule intentionally discriminated against players not having a house on the shard were they wanted to sell he item.  Not sure about the logic.  An explanation would be helpful.

Items on Commission vendors take up housing space.  That is why they are not rentals.

Maybe it's time to upgrade server hardware with the latest 64 core Amd threadripper. It only cost $10k each.

popps

Seth said:

Pawain said:

Arnold7 said:

Always thought this rule intentionally discriminated against players not having a house on the shard were they wanted to sell he item.  Not sure about the logic.  An explanation would be helpful.

Items on Commission vendors take up housing space.  That is why they are not rentals.

Maybe it's time to upgrade server hardware with the latest 64 core Amd threadripper. It only cost $10k each.

Perhaps, this might not even be necessary....

I mean, say that a house has 2,000 lockdowns.... if "Rentable" Commission Vendors were to be designed giving the ability to the 2 players involved, the house owner and the player renting the vendor, to agree upon a "set" number of lockdowns (items) which the Rentable Commission Vendor could have, let's imagine, for the sake of the discussion, 30, then when the 2 players were to be agreeing on that Rentable Commission Vendor to have 30 items, the total of the lockdowns for the house would be showing has 1,970 (2,000 minus the 30 allocated to the Rentable commission Vendor).
This, whether the Rentable Commission Vendor will then have 0 or 30 items up for sale on it.

The total for lockdowns would still be 2,000 only, now part of those 2,000 would be allocated for the house, and part for the Rentable Commission Vendors.

I do not understand why this could not be done.....

Pawain

Seth said:

Pawain said:

Arnold7 said:

Always thought this rule intentionally discriminated against players not having a house on the shard were they wanted to sell he item.  Not sure about the logic.  An explanation would be helpful.

Items on Commission vendors take up housing space.  That is why they are not rentals.

Maybe it's time to upgrade server hardware with the latest 64 core Amd threadripper. It only cost $10k each.

Has nothing to do with a renter taking up 125 items of your housing slots because they put a bunch of junk on the vendor.