ESO LUXURY FURNITURE VENDOR ITEMS – 2021/02/26

spartaxoxo

Olauron wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Those are luxury items, and fall very nearly into the latter defintion. An item does NOT have to be expensive and rare to be a luxury. Again, your defintion us too narrow

It is not my definition, it is Oxford English definition.

No it is not.

Oxford Dictionary also talks of the other definitions as valid.





None of the dictionaries state that luxury only means that. Just you. Oxford gives the example of a hot bath, for example. It's simply not the case that only pricey and rare things are luxuries.

There is absolutely no reference direct or implied that player pov is important either in "It doesn't matter what a player is excited about, it matters what a common tamrielic citizen is excited about." or in "it does matter what is luxury for [character races that can be used by players]".

Yes, there is. "It doesn't matter what a player is excited about" means that a player's pov is not important. When you say that the luxury vendor must be limited to only those races that are playable, you are centering the player pov as the most important. It is contradictory.

ivelbob

Thank you @BenevolentBowd and @Enemoriana for doing this every week! Your hard work is very much appreciated!

To the other commenters who are discussing the definition of luxury: if this is a conversation worth having (and it might be since it keeps recurring every week or so), can I respectfully ask whether it makes sense to start your own thread about it? Putting it in this one distracts from the time and effort that the original posters put in every week to catalog these items for the community.

Olauron

spartaxoxo wrote: »

No it is not.

It is, if you use first party source (lexico.com is renamed oxforddictionaries.com):
Luxury

spartaxoxo wrote: »

When you say that the luxury vendor must be limited to only those races that are playable, you are centering the player pov as the most important.

No, there is no player pov here. Only player character race pov.

spartaxoxo

Olauron wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

No it is not.

It is, if you use first party source (lexico.com is renamed oxforddictionaries.com):
Luxury

spartaxoxo wrote: »

When you say that the luxury vendor must be limited to only those races that are playable, you are centering the player pov as the most important.

No, there is no player pov here. Only player character race pov.

Lexico is a partnership with dictonary.com and is not as detailed as the learner dictionary put out by the Oxford English dictionary's Oxford language learner dictionary. Lexico is a collab not a first party source for either company.

Lexico.com is a new collaboration between Dictionary.com and Oxford University Press (OUP) to help users worldwide with everyday language challenges

Nevertheless, Oxford English Dictionary's own standalone website disagrees with Lexico that's the only definiton, so I don't know why Lexico would list it that way as they are both put out by Oxford.

Actually neither does the first party site for dictionary.com



So both OED and Dictionary.com says that is not the sole defintion of luxury, but their collab site doesn't mention the other usages. Weird.

What Lexico does do though is hint at those others defintions with it's example, e.g. it lists chocolate as a luxury and this is an example sentence.

My greatest luxuries were miniature pots of Marmite and packet soups from the canteen.

Olauron wrote: »

No, there is no player pov here. Only player character race pov.

"Player" is literally the first word there. The main difference between the other tamriel races and player character race in this case, would only be the player's pov. Player control is what you are using to separate them. The ones that are controlled by the player should have their items featured, and the ones that aren't shouldn't. That's the argument. It inherently centers the player.

spartaxoxo

ivelbob wrote: »

Thank you @BenevolentBowd and @Enemoriana for doing this every week! Your hard work is very much appreciated!

To the other commenters who are discussing the definition of luxury: if this is a conversation worth having (and it might be since it keeps recurring every week or so), can I respectfully ask whether it makes sense to start your own thread about it? Putting it in this one distracts from the time and effort that the original posters put in every week to catalog these items for the community.

Fair enough, my latest reply is my last reply on the subject

Olauron

spartaxoxo wrote: »

"Player" is literally the first word there. The main difference between the other tamriel races and player character race in this case, would only be the player's pov. Player control is what you are using to separate them. The ones that are controlled by the player should have their items featured, and the ones that aren't shouldn't. That's the argument. It inherently centers the player.

Player character race has nothing to do with player pov. Even if Rieklings were playable, then we would speak about things Rieklings consider luxurious (as a race, as a community), not what players who use riekling characters consider luxurious. The point is if something is considered luxurious by a race, it is considered luxurious by the characters (player characters) of this race more often than not. It means that there are characters who will come to vendor and see luxury items for the common luxury definition of their race.

Hymzir

NotaDaedraWorshipper wrote: »

@Hymzir @GreenHere
For a riekling it's likely luxury, so how is the name not fitting then? Just because you don't find it fancy doesn't mean someone else have a use for it.

Dude...I clearly stated that: 1 - I'm sure some players will find a use for Riekling stuff. 2 - The game wont be better by not having them, 3 - I have defended stuff like Riekling stuff in the past.

Hell, I actually like that giant bone thing. Don't have a use for it though. And yeah, it does fit the definition of luxury in my book. It is unusual, interesting looking, and might serve as a center piece for some installation or another. I got no beef with it. Most of the Riekling stuff however, are reskins of already existing things. Or simple basic stuff that should be available year round for those who wanna go all savage and frosty with their abodes. Or something that makes one scratch their head, like those leaning rocks from last week. I mean, if they were in the shape of a proper dolmen or something I'd get it, but two slabs of rock leaning against one another? I mean sure, it saves a slot but stil.. ehhh...

But that is not what the point of my post was, nor was it GreenHere's either - as far as I understood, I mean I can't speak for other's but that's the message I got from what was posted.

The thing is, criticizing the lack of luxury is totally valid on a lot of crud that Zanil offers. It is basic stuff, mundane even in some cases. And a lot of it is utilitarian in nature. The fact that it is only available on one weekend per year is ludicrous. It's like a clothing store only selling socks on one weekend each year. I get that you have summer and winter clothes available when appropriate, but socks are fairly basic things that should be available always. The same can be said for a lot of the stuff offered on the limited availability extra special luxury merchant.

Criticizing that stuff on the counts of not being luxurious is fine as far as I am concerned. You may disagree with any particularity assessment, but that does not invalidate the criticism. It just means you disagree.

One new item per week is just asking for trouble, and every week you get a marginal item only of interest to some, or a lazy reskin of something already in game, or something utilitarian like those shop sighs that should be available 24/7 on base merchants, you will get people lashing out. And they will do so by pointing out the lack of luxury on what is on offer - i.e. the lack of interesting and exciting and unique looking stuff worthy of being available on the exclusive basis that Zanil operates.

If ZOS had named Zanil as some other sortta merchant then you would not get "such luxury" comments, but the underlying problem would still be there, and people would express their dissatisfaction some other way. Which was my other, and my main point. Criticizing Zanil's wares for their lack of "luxury" is just a shorthand way for people to express their frustration on the meager offerings he puts up.

Getting all semantic, about what exactly constitutes luxury and what not. is pointless. People use words in manner that is simple and straightforward and fitting to the situation, not by carefully analyzing whether or not the usage fills some academic specification. Zanil is supposed to be a luxury vendor offering rare and expensive goods on a limited basis, and when he fails to excite his customers, offers uninteresting wares, or just simply phones it in, then people are gonna criticize the lack of luxury, because it fits the situation and is easy to understand. Even if you personally disagree with any particular assessment.

ivelbob wrote: »

Thank you @BenevolentBowd and @Enemoriana for doing this every week! Your hard work is very much appreciated!

To the other commenters who are discussing the definition of luxury: if this is a conversation worth having (and it might be since it keeps recurring every week or so), can I respectfully ask whether it makes sense to start your own thread about it? Putting it in this one distracts from the time and effort that the original posters put in every week to catalog these items for the community.

I wholeheartedly agree - wrangling about the meaning of luxury, just detracts from the actual issue at hand, and what is actually being criticized by those posting disgruntled messages. The real issue is not how people are wording their frustration, but the fact that how often Zanil fails to deliver anything of interest to a sizable chunk of players. Each item on it's own is always cool and adds something to the game, but the priorities in what is released, as well as the abysmally slow rate of releasing new stuff, are suffocating the whole point of having a" luxury goods merchant."

Alinhbo_Tyaka

chuck-18_ESO wrote: »

Riekling weeks are the worst ><

No they aren't. They are a two weekends I can use to save up more gold for better stuff later in the rotation.

NotaDaedraWorshipper

spartaxoxo wrote: »

GreenHere wrote: »

.

I often like the non-luxurious things this guy sells, too! But that stuff should just be always-available furnishings, in my view.

I don't find it a valid criticism that the luxury vendor doesn't always sell items that fits a very narrow definition of luxury. The fact of the matter is that many people DO find the items are being used as luxury items for their themed homes. A bonfire isn't utilitarian to everyone. Some people just think camping, others think glamorous parties where the bonfire is the star of the show.

And I personally think those that want the luxury vendor to only sell items that THEY think are luxuries to be obnoxious, and frankly a little disrespectful to the people who enjoy those items but have to read every year about how their favorite items should be removed.

Some of these items don't float my boat either. But thus far I have seen a lot of excellent standout stuff being done with almost each and everyone of them, as showcases that completely tie a room together and steal the show.

In the end this is one of the defintions of luxury, and these items generally fit those defintions for their themes.

Agreed.

Olauron wrote: »

Well, toilet paper is a luxury in some primitive societies even nowadays, but I wouldn't want to be able to buy it from one luxury store only one weekend a year. Does it matter what is luxury for Rieklings when there are no playable Rieklings?

Amusingly, I'm pretty sure a lot of people here would like it if he sold toilet paper or some fabric wipes equivalent...

anadandy

Regardless of how anyone defines luxury - Zenil has long since gotten stale. Its been suggested many times that perhaps he needs an assistant, like Rolis or even the Impressario has an assistant. Shuttle the old content to the assistant, and let Zenil have some fresh new themes - or forget about the themes all together and just have some of the items housing players have been begging for (musical instruments, weapons and racks, art supplies, etc etc etc)

faeeichenlaub

For what's it worth, that reikling bonfire smokes like a diesel truck. Some folks may find a use for that if they place it in the floor it makes for some interesting visual effects and at 4k fairly reasonable.

Araneae6537

ivelbob wrote: »

Thank you @BenevolentBowd and @Enemoriana for doing this every week! Your hard work is very much appreciated!

Agreed! I also appreciate people posting what they plan to do with various furnishings as it gives me ideas for items I might not have considered otherwise!

I understand the frustrations of new players with the “luxury” vendor as I too was rather baffled at this when I started and as others have said, it is better to think of him as a themed furnishing vendor and I certainly am glad that we get a variety of themes and furnishings over the course of the year!

Nord_Raseri

Hymzir wrote: »

Kiralyn2000 wrote: »

Yes, it would have saved a lot of trouble if they'd just named it the "Themed Furniture Vendor" instead of "Luxury". /shrug

Perhaps, but I doubt it. Crap is crap and junk is junk, no matter what you call the dude selling it.

One person's garbage is another man person's good ungarbage

Sylvermynx

@BenevolentBowd, @Enemoriana - thanks for all your work to keep us up on this!

spartaxoxo

Hymzir wrote: »

.
The thing is, criticizing the lack of luxury is totally valid on a lot of crud that Zanil offers. It is basic stuff, mundane even in some cases. And a lot of it is utilitarian in nature. The fact that it is only available on one weekend per year is ludicrous.

The reason this often gets into semantics is the people who post "luxury lol" comments keep repeating this as if it's a fact, and completely ignore that their tastes are not everyone's taste. What YOU find to be crud, mundane, etc is LUXURY to someone else. And people want to treat that view as invalid, and that's where the dictionaries start to come out. Because they are the only objective measurement either side can point to define luxury. And guess what? The side that claims that those aren't luxuries loses that dictionary argument every time. Because considering those items luxuries is by the very definition of luxury valid.

Taste is entirely subjective. What you want to be common, others will prefer to be rare. What you find mundane, someone else will find a luxury. What you consider to be trash, another will consider to be treasure. And ALL of those views are valid. So the argument that an item does NOT belong in the luxury vendor because it is "crud" is not seen as valid by the people who want that item to be there. Nor should it be.

If you want to make an arguement that doesn't get push back, try one that doesn't involve removing an item from the vendor based on your entirely subjective pov of what makes a luxury item desirable. And instead focus on ones that respect that others view those items differently than you do. Or you could skip that and let that conversation play out the same way over and over again each time, because frankly there aren't many objective measurements to go by. We aren't privvy to the sales zos has or anything of that nature.

Olauron

NotaDaedraWorshipper wrote: »

Olauron wrote: »

Well, toilet paper is a luxury in some primitive societies even nowadays, but I wouldn't want to be able to buy it from one luxury store only one weekend a year. Does it matter what is luxury for Rieklings when there are no playable Rieklings?

Amusingly, I'm pretty sure a lot of people here would like it if he sold toilet paper or some fabric wipes equivalent...

And it should be available at Home Goods.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

And people want to treat that view as invalid, and that's where the dictionaries start to come out. Because they are the only objective measurement either side can point to define luxury. And guess what? The side that claims that those aren't luxuries loses that dictionary argument every time.

There is a difference between different usage. Luxury furniture is not a feeling. You can't use the definition for a feeling instead a definition of a thing. Just look at the examples. The "luxury furniture" and the "luxury of extra piece of furniture" have different usage and thus require different definitions that are not interchangeable.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

What you want to be common, others will prefer to be rare. What you find mundane, someone else will find a luxury. What you consider to be trash, another will consider to be treasure. And ALL of those views are valid.

No. Luxury car is not an old (but not old enough to belong to museum) and rusty car. Luxury home is not a shack with holes in the roof. Luxury hotel is not a hotel with beds full of biting insects. Luxury furniture is not a rotten chair made a month ago by a drunken cook. Even if there are some people who will get pleasure from such items or services.

Hymzir wrote: »

Getting all semantic, about what exactly constitutes luxury and what not. is pointless. People use words in manner that is simple and straightforward and fitting to the situation, not by carefully analyzing whether or not the usage fills some academic specification. Zanil is supposed to be a luxury vendor offering rare and expensive goods on a limited basis, and when he fails to excite his customers, offers uninteresting wares, or just simply phones it in, then people are gonna criticize the lack of luxury, because it fits the situation and is easy to understand. Even if you personally disagree with any particular assessment.

I think that is related to each other. Zanil is supposed to sell not simply rare (artificially rare) random items, but items that are worth waiting a year. Items that are too good to be sold every day.

Hymzir

Nord_Raseri wrote: »

Hymzir wrote: »

Kiralyn2000 wrote: »

Yes, it would have saved a lot of trouble if they'd just named it the "Themed Furniture Vendor" instead of "Luxury". /shrug

Perhaps, but I doubt it. Crap is crap and junk is junk, no matter what you call the dude selling it.

One person's garbage is another man person's good ungarbage

You are totally missing the context here [snip]

So once more: I clearly stated that: 1 - I'm sure some players will find a use for Riekling stuff. 2 - The game wont be better by not having them. 3 - I have defended stuff like Riekling stuff in the past.

With that out of the way, let's get to the actual context of the bit you quoted:

If someone finds something to be garbage, they will still find that thing to be garbage regardless of what the dude selling it is called. If you think it is trash, you will do so whether it was offered by the Trash Shop, Super Cool Thingies Store, or Weekly Rotating Themes Emporium. And you would call it trash regardless.

You would call it trash even if someone else thought it was the coolest thing EVAAA!!!!

And you would reflect that sentiment in your comments. And you'd have every right to do so.

So the premise, that having Zanil's store called "Themed Furniture Vendor", would save some trouble, doesn't hold true. People would still feel grumpy and be posting notes about how this week's theme is Trash, and how the previous one was Garbage, and how unexcited they are for the next theme of "Stuff dug out from a steaming pile of sh..." Well you get the picture.

Ultimately, people would still post snarky stuff about crappy themes ('cause this is the internet, you know), and some people would complain about how some others people only want to have themes they like. And we would still be arguing about irrelevant nonsense, when the true matter behind it all, is the fact that the mechanics under which Zanil operates, lead to disappointment more often than excitement to a sizeable chunk of the player base. That is what we should be talking about.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Hymzir wrote: »

.

The thing is, criticizing the lack of luxury is totally valid on a lot of crud that Zanil offers. It is basic stuff, mundane even in some cases. And a lot of it is utilitarian in nature. The fact that it is only available on one weekend per year is ludicrous.

The reason this often gets into semantics is the people who post "luxury lol" comments keep repeating this as if it's a fact, and completely ignore that their tastes are not everyone's taste. What YOU find to be crud, mundane, etc is LUXURY to someone else. And people want to treat that view as invalid, and that's where the dictionaries start to come out. Because they are the only objective measurement either side can point to define luxury. And guess what? The side that claims that those aren't luxuries loses that dictionary argument every time. Because considering those items luxuries is by the very definition of luxury valid.

I think you are projecting way too much into those "luxury lol" comments. I certainly do not get the feeling that people posting such remarks are stating it as a fact. All I get from them is the sentiment that this week's offering did not excite, interest or engage them with the game. That it was disappointing in their eyes, and that they did not see it as something worthy of the exclusivity under which Zanil operates. And I certainly do not get the feeling that they are ignoring other's tastes. They are simply declaring their own.

And pulling out dictionaries and getting into semantics will not help either. Books do not define words, as much as that annoys me, people define words. And since Zanil is called the Luxury merchant, people convey their feelings of disappointment the way they do. Them's the breaks, it isn't any deeper than that.

All this nonsense about overriding others tastes, and attempts to define luxury from one's own point of view, and subjective point of views, is something you are yourself projecting into the argument. This is the internet, and most people are not interested about writing these sort of walls of text. They keep it short and snappy and straightforward, and in this case, whether you like it or not, the socially accustomed model of doing it, is to leave a short remark like "luxury lol" and be done with it. There really isn't anything deeper than that behind it. People are just pissed about how often Zanil fails to deliver anything of interest. If you like something others don't, then good for you. You're the winner in that situation, be happy about it.

Olauron wrote: »

NotaDaedraWorshipper wrote: »

Hymzir wrote: »

]Getting all semantic, about what exactly constitutes luxury and what not. is pointless. People use words in manner that is simple and straightforward and fitting to the situation, not by carefully analyzing whether or not the usage fills some academic specification. Zanil is supposed to be a luxury vendor offering rare and expensive goods on a limited basis, and when he fails to excite his customers, offers uninteresting wares, or just simply phones it in, then people are gonna criticize the lack of luxury, because it fits the situation and is easy to understand. Even if you personally disagree with any particular assessment.

I think that is related to each other. Zanil is supposed to sell not simply rare (artificially rare) random items, but items that are worth waiting a year. Items that are too good to be sold every day.

Yeah, that's exactly it. Whatever the dictionary definition for luxury is irrelevant. The context, in which the word luxury is used on this forum, when it comes to the wares Zanil offers, is: "Is it something cool enough to be worth waiting a whole year for."

[Edited to remove Baiting]

GreenHere

Hymzir wrote: »

I think you are projecting way too much into those "luxury lol" comments.

Yeah, I get that sense too; and not aimed at @spartaxoxo in particular, but just the crowd that always wants to shut down the discussion that Mr Luxury Dude should have better stuff, or the system he operates by should be reworked in some way, or whatever other improvements we want to discuss.

I'm not looking to get all pedantic about the definition of the word luxury -- I just would like ZOS to deliver more (and better) stuff if they're going to offer it in such a limited-time-offer kind of gimmick. The majority of what is locked behind this vendor's artificial scarcity is the kind of stuff I'd expect to be available all the time, to everyone. Hell, a lot of it is 4+ year old assets that don't even cover all the things us Housing enthusiasts want to buy.

How people can read that as we're trying to take things away from them, or tell them what they can and can't like, is truly beyond me. [snip] I get where they're coming from to an extent -- seeing the same sort of comments all the time gets old -- but if "we" started telling "them" their opinions are obnoxious and disrespectful when they said "Man, I love this week's offerings!" we'd get skewered by users before getting our posts removed by moderators.

Look, y'all: We're on your side, even if we don't agree on how it should be expressed. We want more stuff to be available to us all all the time, and want better stuff to be available to us all more often. If us expressing that opinion triggers your "god, I'm tired of hearing that!" reflex... well, that's on you. If your argument is that Zanil's offerings are perfect and could not be better... you're objectively wrong. It doesn't mean you can't like everything he sells, but why do you want to defend ZOS's [snip] offering these goods at such a tortuous pace? They could do it better, and we'd like that. That's all we're saying (usually, anyway) and you don't need to recite dictionaries to derail the argument over it. You're missing our point.

I can't help but feel like the people opposed to the "luxury, lol" comments are just missing the spirit of what the poster is saying, and inventing a personally-attacking one of their own.

[Edited to remove Rude Comments]

ZOS_ConnorG

Greeting all,

After review we have had to edit or remove several posts for various rule violations. Remember to keep any discussion civil, constructive and within the rules.

You are welcome to review the Community Rules here.

Nord_Raseri

Hymzir wrote: »

You are totally missing the context here [snip]


[Edited to remove Baiting]

No. It was just a perfect opportunity to toss in a horrible version of the trash/treasure saying pulled out of Trailer Park Boys. Go about your day.

spartaxoxo

Hymzir wrote: »

.
All this nonsense about overriding others tastes, and attempts to define luxury from one's own point of view, and subjective point of views, is something you are yourself projecting into the argument.

When you ask for items to be removed from a system based on your taste (and to be clear, not luxury as a reason for removal is precisely that as that's inherently a matter of subjective taste) is precisely that. It's not merely stating your tastes when you don't like an item. It's attempting to override someone else's tastes with your own when you attempt to alter the system in such a way that caters to your own tastes and discards the others. You cannot ask for this solution and then claim you're not attempting to override someone else's tastes. It's exactly what you are doing when you remove someone else's tastes from the system.

This is the reason that "luxury lol" is generally met with the same predictable but true response "just because it's not luxury to you doesn't mean that it's not luxury to someone else."

Even if they were to change the name of the vendor, those arguments wouldn't change. That's because the core arguments are "this doesn't excite me, therefore it shouldn't be part of the system" and "just because something doesn't excite you, doesn't mean it doesn't excite someone else. Don't remove something to their taste to suit your own."

At this point, the conversation is difficult to move forward in ways that aren't semantical. Because it's natural to move the conversation to more objective arguments to reinforce your taste argument. Currently that tends to be how luxury is defined merely because he's the luxury vendor. So what he ought to sale is hinted at in his name.

So we get comments like these, which treat the "not luxury" pov as a fact, by treating the people who view them as luxury as wrong.

I get where you guys are coming from. I do. I don't even really disagree with you that strongly. But it's not our fault that the word Luxury has a pretty clear connotation already. "We" (the semantics complainers) don't want him renamed, though; we want him to sell actual fancy stuff that feels worthy of being so rare

And those are not luxury items, because they are not expensive and not rare.

The easy and objective retort to those types of comments, which are attempts to invalidate and counter the "just because it's not luxury to you...." counterargument, is to crack out the dictionary. Because those are objectively incorrect statements.

That's the reason that this back and forth is very typical and predictable.

Whether you like it or not, when you attempt to remove items from the luxury vendor based on subjective measurements, you are attempting to impose your tastes on others. A solution that does NOT do that, would not seek to remove those items from Zanil's offerings. A simple declaration of taste doesn't respond with "those items are luxury to me!" with an attempt to discredit the tastes of the people making that argument by telling them that they are wrong. And that's absolutely what happened in this thread.

You can modify for your solution so that it doesn't attempt to discredit the people who want Zanil to sell those things, or not. It's up to you.

Edit

Here are some good examples of better arguments that come to a similar conclusion as you do, that the system needs improvement.

anadandy wrote: »

Regardless of how anyone defines luxury - Zenil has long since gotten stale. Its been suggested many times that perhaps he needs an assistant, like Rolis or even the Impressario has an assistant. Shuttle the old content to the assistant, and let Zenil have some fresh new themes - or forget about the themes all together and just have some of the items housing players have been begging for (musical instruments, weapons and racks, art supplies, etc etc etc)

katanagirl1 wrote: »

For stuff like the Riekling items, it would be cool if they could get all those in one week so it could free up space for new items. Same for the wedding themed items.

You'll notice that they are respectful to the pov that those items ARE luxury and DO belong; while simultaneously advocating for a system that improves Zanil's offerings.

How you word your argument effects the kind of response you get. You can't attempt to invalidate someone else viewing those items as luxury, which implicitly treats the idea that they are not as a fact, and expect people not to turn to a more authoritative source. This argumentat naturally leads to dictionaries and arguments over what constitutes luxury. It's simply not valid to state that these items aren't luxuries at all. They are only not luxuries to you. They are luxuries to others. Once you accept that as true, it can be easier to refine your argument into one that is more valid. Because you won't be starting from a flawed premise that naturally lends itself to semantical arguments.