Like 100% hikes in required commodities.

Yes, I'm still beating that dead horse. It deserves it.

That it does.

I don't view this change as any odd tangent. I think given the operation of artifact vials it has been clear policy that the benefit of artifact containers were not meant to be used over on non-artifact containers. I think the situation was one where the majority of players did not see this as an intended or even possible use of the artifact.

I don't think staff is trying to pull a fast one at all. They have identified that there was an error that made the runed kegs not operate like runed vials when poured into a non-artifact container and corrected it while notifying the playerbase.

I have to agree with this and is why I was trying to propose changes to help our trades people out. Right now, to even break even, is like bending over backwards, we already had to hike up prices which is bad for business and with changes to the keg rune, unless I see a price drop (150 credits max) will be seeing in the near future 25-50% rise in all my prices except bromides, only reason I am not getting rid of the keg is cause I can still use it, I have had it for over a year and I will say it has not near paid for itself. The savings I got, was passed on to who bought from me.

Someone earlier in the thread mentioned costs, well put it this way, with the runed keg, that is what you were paying, without you were paying a lot more, 150 prices will be going out the door unless your shopkeeper is or is very good buddies with a herbalist.

But lets get off the topic, I am mad and everyone else who spent 300 credits is mad, we know this, now start suggesting how to make it better. Even the increase in commodity price per design, I suggest changes to help ease that and prices we would see at the commodity shop but everyone seems to have entirely missed those points. (personally I would like to see that returned back to what it was seriously, 10 gold comms for one ring? Really, what the heck did I do with that gold?! it is way too much seriously and makes no sense in the slightest.) ANYWAYS.. the comms we have the most problems with are ones in the highest demand that we the players have to do quests for in order to produce them. No village produces gems normally, you have to give them rockeaters. Why when we have miners, can't they dig up gems while they are going after ore and marble? it is bound to happen just like herbalist getting spices instead of a herb. Something like this would begin to help.

Letting the city/commune the village is under the control of work the comm shop like a normal shop, so we can set max and minimum price or even just having a set price like a normal comm shop. First, price policy prevent, for example, Glom sending their novices into a seren village that they cannot go it (tsk tsk enemy) so that they can buy up all the commodities either for personal use or purpose of reselling to their own comm shop (which I know they do quite frequently or use to). But doing this hurt anyone who is not an enemy needing those comms, and Glom by far has enough villages so, on this hand, if price policy IS added, do not allow more than 2 to be added to the list otherwise orginizations will just make it so no one but them can buy from their comm shop.

Sorry to dwell on gems but I am a jeweler and I am starving for gems, I made 50 rings the other night and have like nothing left Dingbats lets up have a minting machine and a smelting furnace - how about a refinery that can produce so many gems? Please? Heck, doing this as dingbat or credit artifacts, so long as it were not asking TOO much (forget 500 credits like the miniature trade benches that is overprices too, 350 MAX for those really, 350 would not be a bad asking price for a machine the created commodities, on that hand, make it to where it only creates one type ((meaning one for every commodity)), I would be happy with that so long as i could get 100 out of it a day / IG month)

You know, I made a suggestion in the Utility Abilities/Effects thread a while back that I thought could work and was fair, but no one's bothered to affirm whether or not they thought it was a good idea.

Just thought I'd stop by and beat the dead horse some, just for kicks.

Basic vial - 5 cut gems
Sorcelglass vial (lasting twice as long) - 8 comms!

Basic pipe - 1 wood
Artisan pipe (lasting twice as long) - 10 comms!

They do look prettier. Yes.
They do last longer. Yes.
Do they limit creativity by demanding insanely cheap comms? Yes.

I agree. Now that we have artisans, we really should do away with vials and pipes in Arts, or there is a huge economic disincentive to ever using the pretty ones.

Not until you make your flashy, overpriced ones worth it.

Also, let me know so I can save some gem-vials for runing.

They're never, ever going to be, though. Unless you make them hold more to go with the pretty.

Artisans do not make vials, the sourceglasses or whatever, those are made by bookbinders and I believe they still require a vial to attach them to? I could be wrong on this. Anyways you remove vials and pipes from arts need to add something else in their place too you know.

Ah yes, I forgot to add. Arts pipe vs Artisan pipe is one thing. A sorcelglass vial still needs a base vial to be made. So 5 cut gems plus 8 comms plus magic ink and leather and gold to make the scroll to begin with (divide by five per vial as it lasts for five uses).

At 4 comms per sorcelglass was already struggling to survive, now it's near impossible. And don't get me started on cups/glasses and bottles!

It actually struck me that there's a simple semi-solution. The rules for commodities for sorcelglass (all of it, vials, glasses, bottles) are somewhat vague and there's things one can do to lower the costs that perhaps not everyone is aware of. For example, it takes gems to already make glasses and so there's no need/should be no need to include gems into the sorcelglass design, only the modifications. Likewise, there should be no need to include more cut gems into a sorcelglass vial design since the vial is already made from the gemstones.

The problem with this suggestion is that either additional mechanics would need to be implemented or some leniency applied. As it stands a coral vial could be theoretically turned into a nebulous amethyst vial. Aside from that, said design doesn't actually require anything beyond amethyst so in this situation it would require nothing beyond sorcelglass costs. However, should we go down the leniency route and simply demand that if a design requires 'nothing' that some gemstones be actually used.

sorceglass needs to add sips. for example if a sorceglass vial gave 75 sips instead of 50, plus the extra months decay, I would consider buying them outside of RP reasons.

That would definitely be great but I have a feeling that's not going to happen. I'd make do with evening out production costs.

Of course it won't happen-- that would make something in Bookbinding useful, and we've already reached our quota with Protection and Healing scrolls.

First, I specifically said I'm not accusing them of trying to "pull a fast one" or whatever else you want to call it, if you recall the above portion of my post. I'm saying, even if it was an honest misunderstanding, their response to it is appalling from a customer service standpoint. I had the hellish experience of working in customer service for years, and one thing I know is, even if the customer is in the wrong, you treat them with respect, you give them the benefit of the doubt and never accuse them of trying to rip you off, and you try to make things right and find a solution that is fair to everyone. It's not so much the change itself that disturbs me (not that I agree with it, mind you), but rather the admins' attitude in response. I'm not making threats and demands. If someone is, I don't know who. What I know is that Sylphas emailed support with a request for a refund, and their response to him - from what he told me - was simply a quote from the legal disclaimer ("we can change what we want, when we want, get over it," essentially). When a reasonable request is made, and denied in a rude fashion, and no attempt to otherwise retain the customer is made, why shouldn't the customer say "well then I'm not going to give you more of my money"? Seems perfectly reasonable to me.





Yes it would be. Except that's the last thing I'm angry about right now. The effect on the in-game economy is important, and I do care about it, but I'm more concerned with the players getting treated wrongly when it comes to their RL money. That's a lot more substantial to me.



I do that. Aubrey's shop is the guild shop, and the guild members are the only ones who receive a discount. Unfortunately there is no way to give discounts specifically to novices or newbies.

EDIT: Oh and all that stuff you said about how easy it was 'back in the day' - back in the day, forging, tailoring, enchanting, and artisan work (I probably forgot a class in there somewhere, sorry) required about half as many materials as they do now. Keep that in mind. True novices have a very hard time getting their basic goods these days. And it just keeps getting made harder. I really think a possible solution to this would be to let shopkeepers set a discount for novices specifically. Guild rank, city/commune rank, experience rank, or whatever.



Yes, that's why I said:



I'm not just complaining for the sake of complaining, here. I have offered a solution I think is perfectly reasonable and would result in no money loss from any party. You just suggested something very similar. I doubt any admin is going to reply to our suggestions here, though, so perhaps the ideas would be more effectively expressed in an email to support@lusternia.com? Like I said, I don't think anyone set out to rip anyone else off, but I think the response to this situation needs to be very different.

Given the topic of this thread is not trades but rather a continuation of a discussion that really shouldn't be had on the forums (See: No discussing issues), I'm just going to go ahead and close the thread.

If you've concerns about the way the situation regarding the refund/non-refund, you are welcome to e-mail support@lusternia.com.