Please reconsider rope changes

[FreeTineen 430]

It's not a solution when the game encourages horses used in combat and you can lose up to 60+ a week, not including the ones that have a lot of bad traits or die of disease/starvation.

Edited March 20, 2015 by FreeTineen

[Belrindor 663]

That I had not considered and is a valid point, but efficient management of animals isn't that tricky. Least I never found it a problem myself. I really don't get what all the fuss is about if i'm honest. I'd rather moan about the hauling system in buildings now that's bad.

 

In the interests of making life easier folk folk i'm not adverse for simply making rope work like the mooring ones did, but it doesn't stop the mooring rope thing being a bug.

I don't disagree with that.

 

Yes, it was a bug. Yes it should have been removed. But not BEFORE a replacement was implemented.

 

Always give more than you take, and give better than what you are taking. THAT is how you win customers. At least that's how I did it. But what the heck, do I know...

[Uberknot 327]

Simple give ability to lead one more animal at 50 70 and 90 Animal Husbandry.

 

Or if you want to torture people at 50 70 and 90 Ropemaking......

Edited March 20, 2015 by Uberknot

[Belrindor 663]

Let me share a little real life story with everyone back from the days when I was dumb enough to actually work for a living and headed the IT department for a major multibillion dollar mutual funds company.

 

I'll try to make a very long story short. On the customer interface side of our website, the customer was able to do certain things they weren't supposed to do. Nothing bad. Just that it wasn't 'intended' originally. None of which violated any private access, they were just able to access things easier than they 'should' have been able to, resulting in many less calls for support. (Which was a good thing all around, and did not affect our job security, because we had plenty of 'real' problems to handle.)

 

Then, some high up mucky muck (probably one of the idiot fund managers that cost the company billions each year from their bad decisions, yet somehow managed to stay employed and get million dollar bonuses each year, whilst refusing to give the wage slaves a cost of living increase...) decided that this functionality needed to be removed.

 

No discussion with the mid level managers was involved. No discussion with the rest of IT was involved. They just did it.

 

I walk into work one day, and the center is FLOODED with calls from irate and PO'd customers. We had several people so ticked off they closed their portfolios that day. Some worth millions.

 

So, I walk (more like storm) into the office of my buddy the ol Director of IT, and ask if this craptastic mess was a result of something he did. Nope, was HIS boss, the hoity toity VP of IT. Ok, so into HIS office I go. No knocking just walked right in and said, "We need to talk, old son."

 

So, I ask why the change was made and why no one was informed, and did he not expect the fallout from the clients?

 

We weren't told because we didn't need to know about it until it happened. (Because informing the people who are your frontline defense against fallout and who retain your customers for you never need to know these silly little details, right?)

 

No one else was informed in the IT heirarchy because THEY didn't apparently need to know until it happened, and as for the fallout from the clients...

 

"I expected a bit of collateral damage from implementing this decision." he says. "The clients will just have to adjust."

 

I looked right at him and said... "Your 'collateral damage' is in the literal millions this morning. I highly suggest you pull your head out of that dark and squishy place it resides in and lead from a position of true leadership by example, and at the very least run such changes that will affect our paying customers by the people who will have to deal with the possible fallout, and see if these grand ideas of yours really are as grand as you think they are. In the end the clients don't care WHY the change was made. All they know is their quality of life is affected to the negative. And they are 'adjusting' The are adjusting their account balances to zero as we speak."

 

His mouth opened and closed a few times like a fish, then he threatened to fire me for subordination.

 

I 'triple dog' dared him to, and noted that only FIVE people in the whole company could run the Merrin trading system, (which, if not up and running, the company would literally lose MILLIONS every few minutes they could not trade with the London and Hong Kong markets.) and the other FOUR had already stated that they were coming with me if this conversation went south. So go ahead Sparky, ball is in your court. Just how much money do you want to lose today?

 

In the end, nothing happened of course. My team was absolutely loyal to me, and he knew it. That's what happens when you treat your team like family. You have their love, loyalty and support, and they stick together AS A TEAM against stupidity. In the end though, we (as in the rest of IT) managed to expose this incompetent buffoon for the fool he was, and HIS boss, the EVP of IT fired him shortly thereafter for something called 'gross negligence' or some such.   My team, on the other hand, finally got the raise they deserved. Cha-ching!

 

About two years later I decided that I'd had enough of fixing other people's fk-ups for a living and went the self-employed route.

 

TL:DR Never make changes that affect your paying customers comfort zone without running it by the people who are in contact with those customers. Making things from a detached eagle eye viewpoint, without boots on the ground, will always result in serious fallout.

 

You'd really think they'd have learned this by now.

 

Post Scriptum Addendum: Please understand what I'm trying to do here. I'm not trying to fan the flames, I'm trying to help put them out. And that will ONLY happen when the people up top realize that they are creating their own problems and stop this kind of behavior in the future. Consider it free customer service advice from an industry professional. (Also, be happy it's free, you couldn't afford me.)

Edited March 20, 2015 by Belrindor

[Wingz 23]

I will never agree that this was a bug....if they are saying it is, it's to cover their behinds from the backlash... It's been publicly talked about in the channels, it's on wurmpedia, and it was here for a long time.... 

 

Even if it is a bug which I doubt... They should've been looking at more important bugs over this...

 

I will never agree that this was a bug.

[Uberknot 327]

My question is why is leading 4 even an issue at all? or 5 or 6 for that matter.

 

Is this some kind of limitation based on PvP again?

 

Like I said make the ability to lead more animals based on skill and give people something instead of taking something away.

Edited March 20, 2015 by Uberknot

[Trake 360]

Don't touch my game bro.

[Tekari 133]

No way this was "unintended".

 

This isn't a Science Fiction movie in which suddenly the "code is becoming alive" and is writing itself.

 

The feature had to be programmed by someone and I doubt it was a two-liner.

 

So don't give us the not-intentional-had-to-be-removed crap please.

 

 

And as others already said somewhere... what about the unintentional features like fountain pans?

 

A bug only a handful of people could turn into gold and is in the game for years.

 

 

My question is why is leading 4 even an issue at all? or 5 or 6 for that matter.

 

Leading 4 animals is an issue because of wagons.

 

Which gives me another argument for the cause... leading 4 with mooring ropes was implemented when wagons came out.

 

A coincidence? I don't think so.

[Uberknot 327]

Way to take my comment out of context and use it....lol.

 

I don't see why we can't lead more than 3.....( Skill, Ropes, etc )

 

Anyhow this seems more about PvP limitations than about whats right..

Edited March 20, 2015 by Uberknot

[Aaron_IRL 256]

For all of the negative, realism, trolls, and watch the world burn types out there, I should not have to activate anything to lead a horse with a bridle.  How much sense does it make that I can, or have to, activate a log, hammer, or even water to lead a horse with reins? 

[Uberknot 327]

My biggest question is how long does a bug have to be a bug before its a legacy item or feature...?  

[Aaron_IRL 256]

My biggest question is how long does a bug have to be a bug before its a legacy item or feature...?  

Not sure, let's consult the fountain in some ridiculously small container...

[Drakeling 106]

A huge +1 from me!

I've been using mooring rope to lead creatures for quite some time for two purposes, one being that one mooring rope weighs less than 4 regular ropes. The second reason being, you can lead multiple creatures with one rope, therefore eliminating the hassle of switching between multiple ropes to lead multiple creatures.

Regardless of weather this was intentionally or not, I certainly wouldn't consider it a 'bug', in the sense that it did not break anything in the game, in fact it enhanced the usability of the game. I know many saw it as a feature. I can't see any justifiable reason why they shouldn't have kept this the way it was.

So, Code AB, I ask that you please revert the changes you've made with the mooring rope. It was fine the way it was.

[elfnz 33]

Bring the  ability to  lead  4  animals with one rope back.    Definitely a plus to this game.            

[Audrel 2,223]

You see, this is exactly what no official documentation, vague or no patch notes, and player discovery of function gets you. Nothing officially documented on how it works is potentially a bug that can later be removed as not intended. No one has clue if almost anything in this game works as intended because nothing is officially documented. You "discover" bugs more often than you "discover" intent. Yet there are many things that are definitely not intended that remain off the block, never get fixed, and don't even warrant a comment of acknowledgement other than "we stuck it in the bug database" where it might sit for eternity because a rope needed fixed now.

[Kianga 219]

I didn't know about it, so I'm not negatively affected by it. Still though, it's typical of what happens all too often - making wurm-life worse (or less fun) without a good reason (and indeed, while so many other things need attention ten times more urgent).

 

Take 4 ropes in a bunch, make a knot in one end (the end you hold) - voila, one rope, 4 ends, 4 animals on one rope. That wasn't hard was it... put it in place of the mooring-rope (which *does* seem a bug to me even if someone implemented it on purpose - it just doesn't make sense - so replace it). But the times I have said or thought  'first make the end-outcome of something you want , only then and not a second earlier take out the parts needed to be taken out to put in the changed feature - right away at the same time!' are numerous... but alas it never seems to happen that way. Very customer-unfriendly, bad for retention, and if happening too many times also looking too much like a kamikaze-mission (with the game) of some kind (by the maker/devs). I'm sure that isn't their intention, how could it be - but it sure often looks like it.

 

A few pointers though that some don't seem to know (maybe because the easy way out with the mooringrope didn't make it neccessary to get to know...):

- you can both unlead and unhitch animals one by one by rightclicking on the *animal*  (no need to figure out which rope is holding it) and choosing 'stop leading' or 'unhitch';

- you can have a rope at the ready when you unhitch the first animal from wagon/cart and immediately after unhitching start to lead the animal with the rope you have ready. Then choose and activate the next rope in the row, only then rightclick the next animal to unhitch and then immediately lead that one with the new rope. You can take your time this way without losing any.

- This does leave you with the front pair which can't be unhitched individually from the wagonseat, but you can unhitch and immediately get off the cart while allready holding the first two on lead, and that halves your problem - plus I think (not 100% sure) that you can still unhitch them one by one by rightclicking them one at a time after leaving the cart/wagon as long as you don't first walk away, stay as close to the cart-/wagon-seat as possible (correct me if I'm wrong, I might be on this part - I did see this possibility several times though, to my surprise - but that could have been yet another bug).

 

In other words, using individual ropes for individual animals isn't quite the difficulty some make it out to be - but I agree it can be a pain anyway, and taking out a solution for that without equal replacement is not a good way to go...

And as also said a lot of times allready: without documentation we can't  know what is intended and what not, so don't be surprised if things 'deemed a bug' (at some point) never got reported. We can't.

[Omar 479]

 

 

1 rope lol

Edited March 20, 2015 by Omar

[Uberknot 327]

 

 

1 rope lol

 

 

I have to agree this should not have been left like that.

[Clatius 455]

My biggest question is how long does a bug have to be a bug before its a legacy item or feature...?  

[Kohle 99]

+1

[Calisthra 59]

+1 to revert or replace this functionality.

Bug? No way. This was installed with the wagon update just not as highly publicized. CMs on help have been suggesting the use of mooring ropes for a long time so let's not go down this "unintended functionality" path.

./rant=off

[McDaniel 342]

+1

[warrior 455]

Perhaps even a new item you can create with 4 normal ropes called a lead rope which allows you to lead 4 animals.

[Omar 479]

+2

[Uberknot 327]

Perhaps you make and put bridles on them?  seems the solution is already there?