Enable filled containers on public merchants, but...

[EliasTheCrimson 348]

... enable FULL decay on ALL items on the merchant. Should be fair enough of a trade-off.

This would primarily be useful for enabling sales of bulk items or grouped items, such as food or armor sets. Obviously none of the nested items would be available directly to the buyer; only the "top layer" of items on the merchant would be up for purchase.

[violetann 43]

i think the only reason filled contains aren't allowed is because its not coded...

there was a conversation about this before asking about allowing us to sell liquids like paint etc. that it was it wasn't coded.

[Jarosz 189]

Rolf needs to code in a Package.

here are a few ideas, you buy packaging material, and you put all the items you want to sell into it.  once packaged it takes the sum total of all Set Price and sells for that price.

there shouldnt be any taxation on packaged materials because the money has already gone back into the economy through the purchase of packaging material.

Or have an option through merchants to make packages, and the merchants charge you prepay for packaging per item.

So in other words you have 2 options under this merchant:

option 1: you just set price and put individual items in the window.

option 2: there is a 3rd box in the window where you can drag any number of items into (should limit it by weight ie 50kgs) with an option to package.  once you click the option a window would pop up demanding either prepay or taxation taken from profits (either way you'd be paying the system with little to not effect to the buyer)  also having a naming convention for the packaged goods would be nice.

both options 1 and 2 would show up in the merchants selling list, and the packaged goods would be viewable much like a backpack/satchel/bok when you open them.

now, the problem is if you keep packages in the packaging after buying... because you could be able to store many items in the bank in just 5 packages resulting in free delivery in one server through the banking system.... or even an infinite amount of items... think of the satchel within the satchel effect. ie packaging many packages into 1.

also, should items in packaging take dmg?

i think if there is a prepay system for people to make packaged goods, then it shouldnt matter, as they are paying for the service to have items packaged into 1 unit.  to ship it by mail they would still have to pay, and they can only ship goods freely (24 hours) on the server they bank the item.

[Guest Siege]

i think the only reason filled contains aren't allowed is because its not coded...

there was a conversation about this before asking about allowing us to sell liquids like paint etc. that it was it wasn't coded.

[Doctorchaos 0]

i remember in beta you used to be able to buy satchels with stuff in them from the trader so the code was there once.

[Madt 1178]

I like Jarosz' idea of packaging. This will be good for people selling armour and such, so people cant buy one glove and ruin the set, they'd need to buy all parts together.

[Doctorchaos 0]

well as i said it worked in beta with satchels and stuff so backpack would hold the chain set.

[Iulianx 90]

that will work for selling locks too

[EliasTheCrimson 348]

I like Jarosz' idea of packaging. This will be good for people selling armour and such, so people cant buy one glove and ruin the set, they'd need to buy all parts together.

[Jarosz 189]

I like Jarosz' idea of packaging. This will be good for people selling armour and such, so people cant buy one glove and ruin the set, they'd need to buy all parts together.

Or you could just go with my idea in the OP about coding it such as not to allow buyers to interact with items inside containers in the trade window.

Then you could essentially set the price of the main container as the "pack" price.

either option is good, but to charge for packaging instead of providing your own, it could be beneficial, especially if you cant make your own due to lack of resources.

[EliasTheCrimson 348]

I like Jarosz' idea of packaging. This will be good for people selling armour and such, so people cant buy one glove and ruin the set, they'd need to buy all parts together.

Or you could just go with my idea in the OP about coding it such as not to allow buyers to interact with items inside containers in the trade window.

Then you could essentially set the price of the main container as the "pack" price.

either option is good, but to charge for packaging instead of providing your own, it could be beneficial, especially if you cant make your own due to lack of resources.

I figured that the requirement of providing a physical container for your items would not only only serve as a reasonable extra effort for taking advantage of the feature of selling packages, but it would also in itself prevent all thinkable forms of problems that may come with implementing a brand new feature.

In other words, if we simply make the old code and properties for all containers compatible with merchants, we'll never have to worry about things like decay, volume, or new exploits, because it will all essentially be identical to what it used to be.

[Doctorchaos 0]

I like Jarosz' idea of packaging. This will be good for people selling armour and such, so people cant buy one glove and ruin the set, they'd need to buy all parts together.

Or you could just go with my idea in the OP about coding it such as not to allow buyers to interact with items inside containers in the trade window.

Then you could essentially set the price of the main container as the "pack" price.

either option is good, but to charge for packaging instead of providing your own, it could be beneficial, especially if you cant make your own due to lack of resources.

I figured that the requirement of providing a physical container for your items would not only only serve as a reasonable extra effort for taking advantage of the feature of selling packages, but it would also in itself prevent all thinkable forms of problems that may come with implementing a brand new feature.

In other words, if we simply make the old code and properties for all containers compatible with merchants, we'll never have to worry about things like decay, volume, or new exploits, because it will all essentially be identical to what it used to be.

yes but then you run the risk of inacron or some one else blowing up your merchants do you not?

and my suggestion doesnt need any new code really unless rolf deleted the old code and you had to buy the container as you couldnt buy individual items in it.

[EliasTheCrimson 348]

I like Jarosz' idea of packaging. This will be good for people selling armour and such, so people cant buy one glove and ruin the set, they'd need to buy all parts together.

Or you could just go with my idea in the OP about coding it such as not to allow buyers to interact with items inside containers in the trade window.

Then you could essentially set the price of the main container as the "pack" price.

either option is good, but to charge for packaging instead of providing your own, it could be beneficial, especially if you cant make your own due to lack of resources.

I figured that the requirement of providing a physical container for your items would not only only serve as a reasonable extra effort for taking advantage of the feature of selling packages, but it would also in itself prevent all thinkable forms of problems that may come with implementing a brand new feature.

In other words, if we simply make the old code and properties for all containers compatible with merchants, we'll never have to worry about things like decay, volume, or new exploits, because it will all essentially be identical to what it used to be.

yes but then you run the risk of inacron or some one else blowing up your merchants do you not?

and my suggestion doesnt need any new code really unless rolf deleted the old code and you had to buy the container as you couldnt buy individual items in it.

That's exactly what my suggestion is

Allow purchase of containers, not the items in them individually.

Merchants that are obviously used for storage is supposed to be wiz-killed anyway, so what are you talking about?  ???

[Guest Siege]

Merchants that are obviously used for storage is supposed to be wiz-killed anyway, so what are you talking about?  ???

He's referring to when a number of LO merchants were wiz-killed prior to that rule being announced on this forum, while other merchants were untouched.

[EliasTheCrimson 348]

Merchants that are obviously used for storage is supposed to be wiz-killed anyway, so what are you talking about?  ???

[Doctorchaos 0]

Merchants that are obviously used for storage is supposed to be wiz-killed anyway, so what are you talking about?  ???

[EliasTheCrimson 348]

Merchants that are obviously used for storage is supposed to be wiz-killed anyway, so what are you talking about?  ???

He's referring to when a number of LO merchants were wiz-killed prior to that rule being announced on this forum, while other merchants were untouched.

Okay, how is this relevant to this thread ???

[Guest Awesomefusion]

Maybe no Kyara merchants were messed with becuase we don't store corpses and stuff like that on merchants?!

[Doctorchaos 0]

Maybe no Kyara merchants were messed with becuase we don't store corpses and stuff like that on merchants?!