[Vendor Suggestions Updated] 2 Sleek Vendor User Interfaces (mock-up images to show suggestions)

"

Jgizle wrote:

For visual improvements I would like this. As long as people can only see the gems and cant buy them till they meet the required conditions.

The difference between the Vendor System I propose and the Vendor System we have now is every Class is able to see even Skill Gems they cannot buy (with information on which Classes can) in conjunction with red text messages explaining what Skill Gems require Quest completion to unlock.

Other than that, the Vendor System I propose is still the same as the current Vendor System (just explained better to players) when it comes to 'meeting required conditions' be it you need sufficient funds or need to be a certain Class to buy certain Skill Gems, or you need to complete Quests to unlock certain Skills Gems.

"

Jgizle wrote:

It could be problematic having 1 npc selling gems as presented in OP along with the normal stuff they sell, that would make the npc have about 5 tabs. I don't know if that could cause technical problems or not for GGG.

What are you talking about? *Laughs* I'm sorry, but did you even bother to look at the mock-up of the Vendor System I propose?

The Vendor System I propose clearly displays every Support and Active Skill in the game (the exception being drop-only and vendor-recipe-only Skill Gems) in a single Vendor Tab split into two columns: Column 1 is for Support Skills, and Column 2 is for Active Skills that are by default organized in Alphabetical, RGB order from left to right, top to bottom in every row.

That being said, even though Concept 2 consists of two Tabs, that still does not equal 5 Tabs. Where do you get the number 5?

Why do you think I added a Scroll Bar in the mock-up Vendor System?

very nicely done

i like both these ideas and I wish GGG and game devs in general would work WAY (*@$ING HARDER on this stuff.

wouldn't call them "sleek" so much as "functional" ... or perhaps just "proper" :P

one comment about option 2 is that i think the gem icons need to be big enough for ppl to learn/recognize what each gem looks like. they look kinda small now.

----------

now where's the mockup where you don't have to back out to a fricking text menu to switch between sell/buy modes? ;P

"

HeavyMetalGear wrote:

"

HippieRonin wrote:

It does the opposite, simplifies it. Instead of doing wiki research and running around the acts to talk to different vendors, you just go to a forge that shows the gems you can craft and what materials you need.

I can find common ground at least to some degree on other things you've mentioned, except the above quoted from you. Why? For someone who suggests GGG simplify the game to an almost easy-mode level more than it already is, how does requiring MORE materials other than simple currency any simpler than the system we have now?

At least with the current system, you can quickly ask a friend, guild members or PM someone on poe.trade for a gem you need whereas the crafting system you speak of to acquire gems sounds even more like a chore for every gem you need.

"

HeavyMetalGear wrote:

"

HippieRonin wrote:

Think of PoE as a sandbox class creator. You have all the tools available, and it's up to you to develop a combination that works, using all the resources at your disposal.

We can agree to disagree here. I personally do not want the game (or any game) handing me 'all the tools' I need because all that will do at the end of the day is make you obtain your creative goals too quickly, and then when there is nothing else to look forward to when you have everything, you will likely get bored with the game at a quicker rate than you otherwise would at a slower rate.

You seem to be contradicting yourself here. Are you upset about suggestions that make the game more of a chore or less? And I never said what materials were required. Currency could be the materials. But it's not like you are buying 20 gems per day. Materials could be as simple as a ruby, sapphire, or chaos ring, and it really wouldn't change much.

"

HeavyMetalGear wrote:

It kind of follows the 'gain the world and lose your soul' psychology that is not fully understood until it finally happens to you, and then is when it hits you, so what is the rush? Is having all tools at your dispoal really what you want? Think about that for a minute given the aforementioned bigger picture point of view from someone who has already experienced the situation more than once...

Let's not exaggerate here... This isn't changing the experience much at all. We're talking about skill gems, not instant 6L armor. Slippery slope fallacy? And your same argument could be just as validly used against you for trying to make things easier/more convenient with your suggestion in the OP.

Nice idea, while the wiki is nice, I don't agree with how it is basically required to get information that should be easy to find in a game.

Knowing ggg they would not split a single tab in half and they would not add a scrolling tab.

Instead they would do a tab for each color gem and make a final tab for supports of all colors similar to the way presented because it would be easier to do. As such you would have about 5 tabs.

"

xSTGx wrote:

wouldn't call them "sleek" so much as "functional" ... or perhaps just "proper" :P

You are generally right. Not going to lie, I used the word sleek for click-bait purposes, and I did it for very good reason because the current User Interfaces in general are appalling and need to be addressed. The proposed Vendor UI Systems may not be sleek, but they are not bad looking, either. They are designed well enough to serve the purpose they were designed for.

"

xSTGx wrote:

now where's the mockup where you don't have to back out to a fricking text menu to switch between sell/buy modes? ;P

http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/484318

It was in the linked thread above back when I proposed the idea you speak of back in 2013, but the old UI Images referenced from Image Shack disappeared for some reason, and because the suggestion was never considered by GGG, I removed the images from my computer to rid clutter.

This is not my first time proposing better User Interfaces.

"

Jgizle wrote:

Knowing ggg they would not split a single tab in half and they would not add a scrolling tab.

Instead they would do a tab for each color gem and make a final tab for supports of all colors similar to the way presented because it would be easier to do. As such you would have about 5 tabs.

Going off a mere assumption on what GGG will actually do if / when they address the situation of Vendors and the Gems they sell, then it would be wise for the developers not to implement a more 'divided', less convenient Vendor UI System until they actually can implement a Vendor UI System when better tools are available (assuming the tools they have now are incapable of that).

Hopefully, though, the developers are actually capable and will deliver something close to one of the proposed Vendor UI Systems in my OP. We will see.

"

HippieRonin wrote:

Think of PoE as a sandbox class creator. You have all the tools available, and it's up to you to develop a combination that works, using all the resources at your disposal.

"

HeavyMetalGear wrote:

We can agree to disagree here. I personally do not want the game (or any game) handing me 'all the tools' I need because all that will do at the end of the day is make you obtain your creative goals too quickly, and then when there is nothing else to look forward to when you have everything, you will likely get bored with the game at a quicker rate than you otherwise would at a slower rate.

"

HippieRonin wrote:

You seem to be contradicting yourself here. Are you upset about suggestions that make the game more of a chore or less? And I never said what materials were required. Currency could be the materials. But it's not like you are buying 20 gems per day. Materials could be as simple as a ruby, sapphire, or chaos ring, and it really wouldn't change much.

Pardon my late reply.

A Vendor UI System proposal to make Skill Gems easier to 'purchase' does not translate to making Skill Gems easier to 'acquire' as you seem to believe since my idea does not involve lowering Skill Gem prices, making all Skill Gems available to every Class (your idea) OR altering drop rates for Skill Gems so as to not require players to buy them from Vendors at all (more on that reiterated in the following reply to your next reply to clarify this).

What is it exactly I am contradicting?

In response again to your suggestion to require 'more' materials to buy Skill Gems, the point in my initial argument was players should not be required to have 'more' materials beyond the currency values Vendors currently charge for Skill Gems. Why charge more for Skill Gems? Explain how that makes sense. Just because you want all Skill Gems available to every Class? No, just no. I do not agree with that, I never will for said reasons, and I am quite sure GGG will not agree, either.

"

HippieRonin wrote:

Let's not exaggerate here... This isn't changing the experience much at all. We're talking about skill gems, not instant 6L armor. Slippery slope fallacy? And your same argument could be just as validly used against you for trying to make things easier/more convenient with your suggestion in the OP.

At this point, I am beginning to think you want to argue for the sake of arguing, so let me be more clear on where my proposed UI ideas stand regarding Vendors and the Skill Gems they sell...

The Vendor UI System I proposed is not talking about an instant 6-L Armour, either (back at you on that one). The Vendor UI System I propose actually makes sense and makes 'purchasing' Skill Gems not actually 'acquiring' the Skill Gems more easier. That is where you mistranslated my OP.

Just because the words 'acquire' and 'purchase' are interchangeable does not mean they are the same thing when comparing my idea to your idea.

There is a difference between making something easier to 'acquire' vs. making something easier to 'purchase'. Had the proposed Vendor UI System made it easier to 'acquire' Skill Gems, it would have involved lowering Skill Gem prices, making all Skill Gems available to every Class (your idea) OR changes to drop rates for Skill Gems to drop more often (which wouldn't even not make sense in this case) so as to not require players to buy them from Vendors at all.

Therefore, you could make the 'trying to make things easier/more convenient with your suggestion' argument IF the above were the case, but it is not, so you cannot 'validly' use that argument against my initial argument against your initial suggestion to make all Skill Gems available to every Class because your initial suggestion does make 'acquiring' Skill Gems easier. The suggestion in my OP does not (big difference).

That being said, I see what you did there with 'easier/more convenient' as if they are exactly the same thing when they are not in this situation. My suggestion 'convenient'? Absolutely. But does it make 'acquiring' Skill Gems easier by making them available to every Class? Absolutely not.

To argue otherwise on the above stated reiterated and explained several ways at this point would mean you are saying my suggestion lines up with yours on 'ease of acquisition' when it doesn't.