Sign in to follow this  
MamaDarkness

FOUNTAIN-PAN REVISION - CLOSES NOV 1st

Recommended Posts

Make them into source rifts if that fixes the code, and allow us to buy and sell them like usual and move them (why change that?) obviously if source rift = same item just different name. I don't know the technical issues or reasons why they need to be renamed though.

 

I don't think it's right really to take something away that's been in the game for so long.

 

No technical issues, they just want to re-name them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I can imagine that it is a bit of a technical issue. But renaming them which would change them into another item with the same function should do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

People that bought these and traded them, auctioned them, sold them did so At Their Own risk, knowing full well that it was a bugged item.  Personally I have owned two, and somewhere along the years of me playing either lost track of them forgot about them or just outright took them outta whatever was holding them.  Did i whine about it, no, i just shrugged and said whatever and continue to play.

 

When new people ask about fountain pans they are usually told its a way to store items to stop decay.  Not hey this is a bugged item, likely to be taken out in the future so basically your gambling 60Euro if you choose to purchase this.  Doubt that has ever been said when buying this item.  

 

Lost track of them? pulled them out?  Personally I would never take advice from someone who cannot keep track of his own assets.  The reason you didnt whine is because you didnt have one.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I have to say, as someone who does not own one, is that they should not remain in the game. However, people did infact pay alot of silver for these items, and as such they deserve some form of compensation. Even if they paid good money for a glitched item, it's codeclub's(Rolf's) lack of judgement that resulted in this form of trade, and it'd be unfair to anyone who spent silver on these items due to this bad decision. Personally I think a new item with a similar purpose that's obtainable ingame somehow(through a trader most likely) would be the easiest solution that would make both parties at peace.


Edited by williamwierd
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My input on The OP suggestions for remedy:


 


Renaming those containers (usually fountains) to "Source Rift" or something similar indicating they have created an anomaly. Also changing their actual item template so they are a completely different item.


Sure, Rename away, this effects functionality in game in no manor what so ever. I am curious as to why this is needed though? Just happen to feel like it? Does this effectively tag these items as legacy items to ensure no future bugs that may again make these possible to make slip between the cracks? Just please for the love of all things holy do not change their appearance, Wurm is notorious for making a little tweak that seems irrelevant and thus causing horrendous bug from these small tweaks.


    Making existing items containing these anomalies permanently immovable.


No, because as stated previously tweaks are the root of all evil in this game.


    Making these anomalies heat a bit slower


No, because this will have literally no effect on the balancing of anything and is thus pointless. Fountain pans do not current smelt ore/heat items any faster than anything else.


    Imposing a minimum but still slower decay rate in those cases where they are in nodecay containers


No, this is the most essential feature of these items that the majority of owners enjoy and have bought the items for, in close second being over all capacity.


    Potentially increasing the storage size of magic chests.


Yes, this helps balance the existence of the items in question, in my opinion, by giving others larger, but most critically non-decaying storage.


    Potentially adjusting the amount they can hold.


No, again modification of function is too likely to risk unintended side effects just causing more drama in the future.


    Potentially having them decay like magic chests and not be repairable.


No, eventual removal is still removal and will not be in the favor of all those whom are currently fighting to have these legacy items maintained as a part of this games history.


    Making them not fit into chests any longer (existing would likely remain though)


No, a mix of previous fear of tweaking causing problems being reiterated. But this also forces current owners to choose between one function or another of the item, due to weight if you ever remove it from a chest to move your location it will no longer be able to be used as a volume expansion to non-decaying containers. Or alternatively if you happen to be a person that uses them to smelt and store items you may drop your items from the container temporarily to use it to smelt and then want ot put it away and continue to use it for storage.


    New anomalies would not be able to be created (legacy item)


They are not currently able to be created any longer since the update in 2008 that made the finishing of unfinished items inside other containers impossible and then the later update removing unfinished items that do not require extra component from existence in the game. Unless by this it is meant that a zero tolerance policy for such items yielded from bugs will be implement from here out? If that is the case, certainly, but only under the circumstance where ALL items are removed/dealt with in a timely manor, in conjunction with the bug also being fixed. No more Fix it, but let the results of the bug linger until someone complains enough for Devs to take care of it.


 


My input on other player's suggestions for remedy:


 


I would say make the magic chest hold more and remove the fountain pans and give the owners of the fountain pans a new free chest as a replacement.


If the circumstance arises where it's deemed utterly necessary that the fountain containers must be removed from game, this seems like a fair resolution so long as the Large magical chest can contain as much as a current fountain container would, since value wise this is the most similar for current trader price available. In addition the replacement to fountain containers are one chest per fountain container, and not one chest per owner regardless of quantity of fountain containers owned.


 


I think the important part is making a new item that can do about the same thing is that the trader sells them.


I think that this in itself is the best resolution, either via shop or trader make items of similar function available to all, it is the multi-purposefulness of these items that make them so desirable and thus expensive. Not only do they expand the internal storage capacity of non-decaying inventory but the capacity in itself makes so many things much more easy to manage in Wurm. But I'd still be in favor leaving the original fountain containers with all current functions as legacy items for the players how have been here for nearly a decade. Sure, it would remove monetary value the current items to have a replacement of similar function in game, but in essence I feel that's exactly where the balance lies. Make the function available to everyone without taking anything from anyone else. The monetary value of the item means little to me, a majority of other players I have discussed the current situation with and seemingly a large number of those in this thread.


 


So in the end this would be the best compromise as it takes away the value of the item, leaves the function and gives all those that were not around when these items were make-able the ability to experience to joys of them, it would also generate more revenue for Wurm Online if the new rendition were available from the shop or traders at the approximate value of fountain containers. Even possibly making a few variations as there are of the current fountain containers, in example fountain pans are fire-impervious and fit in small magical chests making them over all most useful and previously averaging 80-100e/s. Fountain backpacks only fit in large magical chest which means while they are impervious to fire, and can be used in forges they cannot be used in conjunction with the steel magical chest to prevent decay at the same time, price averaging 60-80e/s. Finally satchel fountains, which burn, but fit in small magical chest so they are exclusively used to non-decaying storage expansion, price averaging 40-60s.


 


Plenty of other good suggestions were made but I feel all the options are best covered in the few I responded to above in the least redundant manor. 


 


In the end I particularly want to say thanks Rolf, Md, Retro and other involved staff for taking the time to make this into an open discussion for both sides to air their grievances and hopefully find a compromise that will not devastate either side.


Edited by Yarnball
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just take them out of the game and be done with it, sorry to the people who recently bought them for outrages amounts, but you took a gamble on something that was a bug. For the ones that bought up a whole bunch in the past two weeks on speculation, sucks to be you.


 


People were willing to spend large amounts of silver on this, add a magic chest with a greater holding capacity for people to buy, the ones that want them will buy them.


 


Thanks for the new abilities to paint.


 


Love the kiln, I don't do pottery, but was an interesting addition to my deed.


 


Please create a smelter now, I will be very happy to build it and put it to good use!


 


Honestly there has been more outrage over this than a lot of game type bugs which really need attention.


 


There is no guarantee on the value of your virtual assets in this game, something that was worth 500EU today could very well be worth a fraction of that tomorrow.


Edited by JakeRivers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not have an issue with a rename, or even them having to be empty in order to be moved.  Both of those items are livable.  Still want to be able to put them in the chest as that is why I have mine.


 


For the folks that do not have them, I, personally, have no issue with something similar being made available on a trader.  Have even given a few away over the years to people that I knew would want to use them as well.  I just do not want to give up the convenience that I have become used to.  


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TI know in a post somewhere it was stated by staff that on deed decay was needed and I think most of us will agree that there are lots of items that should always decay on deed but there are so many more that should not.

 

I don't see any reason for anything on deed to decay. What's the difference in a database if it says 500 items or 5000? All decay on deed does is create repetitive, boring activities to have to worry about. When I have a short time to log into the game, all I end up having time for is maintenance. It's never fun. I see the same sights, do the same actions, day after day after day. It's like homework or housework. Decay doesn't leave time for people to play how they want to spend their time. That's why people were willing to pay so much for a big item that will stop lots of stuff from decaying.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...

 

"I can see a lot of people would like to see these simply become a trader item.

We'd prefer to leave these items as legacy items rather than opening the floodgates and making them easily available but I am taking note."

 

WHY. What does Code Club have against making money? Throw caution to the wind. Have some spare bucks to hire more staff and upgrade servers. If you hate money so much, donate it to charity.

 

 

"In terms of the containers themselves, we'd like to limit them from continuing on through the game"

 

WHY. These kind of legacy items add charm and history to the game.

 

 

 

"What we wish to do is find a way to still allow those who paid for them to enjoy their moneys worth, without leaving them as an item that will continue to exist and be passed on. Thus the making immobile and untradeable, the owner still gets a benefit, but in the end, the bucks stops with them."

 

But that's not fair. They were purchased with the understanding that the person would have them as long as they wanted them, and then could sell them if they felt like it. It is NOT their moneys worth then, is it? It was an investment when it was purchased. Now it would become an overpriced short-term tool.

 

 

"until loading came out, large magic chests couldnt be moved at all"

 

But at least upon purchasing a magic chest, you knew it was gonna be stuck where you dropped it, so that was part of your purchasing decision. So many people put off buying them, or didn't buy them at all, because of this. Once again, Code Club left money on the table.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But what concerns more than those two points is the simple fact that Players... so many of them... are so comfortable with using an item that should be considered an exploit in a game. THAT ALONE is troubling to me. It seems I have little in common with most others here. I wish to obey the rules even when I have disagreements ith them. It's obvious some Players only give lip service when they state they are willing to obey the rules. I wonder how many others areas of the game are compromised.

 

Firstly please note, I'm not trying to be argumentative toward you, or anyone in particular. I just like to see things be fair.

 

Am I comfortable using an exploit? If I'm allowed to, HELL YEAH, if it lets me play in a way that enhances my enjoyment. To me I see these things as a fortuitous accident. Obviously if people made lots of them and will pay lots for them, it's exactly what people wanted. Programmers, take a damn hint! As for wishing to obey rules, I don't want this kind of rules that make me have to spend hours upon hours doing boring things. It's a sandbox. Let me play how I want! I don't want to repair things constantly. If someone does want to repair things, they can find things to repair. I don't see how the game is compromised by the existence of an item that people obviously value, that lets them enjoy their play time in alignment with their tastes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in the end it does more harm than good, because items that should have gone long time ago will keep bloating the db (and adding lag)

 

Someone PLEASE explain to me how a database is more bloated by saying "this FSB has 252 corns" versus saying "this FSB has 523 corns." IT MAKES NO SENSE. If I'm paying for a deed and I stuck corns in a FSB, I want those damn corns! If I stop paying for the deed and leave the game, sure, kill the corns off. To me, what DOES lag the game is corpses strewn all over. And yet still, The rock is too shallow to bury anything in.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rolf, these items were made abusing a bug, they were bought and sold for years

 

...

 

They were never intended, they allow a certain group of people (ie those who are willing to sink a lot of real money into an item YOUR GAME

 

 

 

What are those people going to think when they come onto these servers and discover that THEIR TREMENDOUS INVESTMENTS CAN BE WIPED OUT IN A FLASH FOR NO REASON.

 

 

 

 

    • A small number of people (the owners) will be pissed off but ultimately get over it because they are human beings and not demons of unending rage.

DON'T BANK ON SOMETHING LIKE THIS NOT BEING THE STRAW THAT BROKE THE WHALES' BACK

 

 

    • Whether or not you give them something to shut their crying up is your business

WHOSE CRYING ARE YOU GOING TO CONCERN YOURSELF WITH MORE? THE PEOPLE WHO DROPPED HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS INTO YOUR GAME, OR THE ONES WHO DIDN'T BUT ARE PISSED BECAUSE SOME DID?

 

 

These are the people you need to start thinking about, not the entitled few.

 

CODE CLUB EXECUTIVES: I SINCERELY HOPE YOU READ STUDIES AND ATTEND CONVENTIONS, ETC. ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT YOU SHOULD WORRY ABOUT "THE ENTITLED FEW."

 

 

(Waiting on the bright red flames from a certain someone, c'mon dude I know you wanna ;) )

 

WILL YOU SETTLE FOR A CHICK?

 

Let people play how they want to play. The entire populace of the planet that's willing to do the same thing over and over and over and over is already playing the game. Get some new players now, while you're young enough to stay up late maintaining servers. What are you waiting for?

 

The fact that people made and bought these items means they don't want decay. For the people who love to lose items and fix decay, they can still satisfy themselves! Throw bricks and food in the streets! Build some nice buildings off deed, and repair them weekly! They can still get their repetitive fix, and throw away invested time and money on inventory loss.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If someone could find where I stated they would never be changed and quote me it would help everyone I think. I can't recall saying they would never be changed myself :/ The Wiki says "These were left in the game as artifacts but making more is no longer possible" but that information may or may not be based on something I said/wrote.

 

I dont have any fountian pans, so the final outcome does not affect me, but what is your reason to avoid actual problems in the game and tackle something that actually brings some historic value to the game? The fact that it was left in game from the beginning and the fact that you may not have publicly stated that it would remain you allowed your dev team who all were questioned about it answer that it would remain in game as an artifact. 

 

The item today holds value because of ECONOMY, that is what helps drive economy is the fact that it is no longer creatable but some people may want it while others do not. But to waste time worrying about an item that does not hurt the game in anyway is just ludicrous. Please direct your focus on stabilizing your game instead of pedaling with minute problems. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone PLEASE explain to me how a database is more bloated by saying "this FSB has 252 corns" versus saying "this FSB has 523 corns." IT MAKES NO SENSE. If I'm paying for a deed and I stuck corns in a FSB, I want those damn corns! If I stop paying for the deed and leave the game, sure, kill the corns off. To me, what DOES lag the game is corpses strewn all over. And yet still, The rock is too shallow to bury anything in.

 

Doubt it has anything to do with the database being bloated, Problem is the relationships of the Pan/Bag with the fountains which is probably different in upcoming builds.

 

Also quite a lot of bugs with containers and exploits over the years so they probably redid the coding in a better fashion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never seen a problem with these items. I don't understand why everyone is up in arms about it now.

Renaming them and changing magic chest size seems alright if something absolutely needs to be changed. I'd be mostly worried with the value of these items changing too much if some other drastic change was made. Seems unfair to those that have bought/own them, especially after how long the staff has let them remain in the game.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The whole concept of "anomalies" is dumb. Spending time codding nerfs and restriction for an item that has a limited life span and can't be created again doesn't sound efficient.

 

imo, I would add a new craftable magic metal container that is bigger on the inside then the outside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

making them immovable would mean:

 

if a magic chest or a container has one in it, you can't move or load that item etc.

cannot put them into a new container, only drop on ground.  Once taken out, won't go back in but we do not expect to force them out with a change.

you would be able to move them, load them etc. if empty.

 

I honestly don't really understand your crusade against the items.   The stupid thing doesn't cause any unbearable envy in the population that I've ever seen, and the whole issue is blown way out of proportion.   If they are being kept in the game, who cares.   They've been in the game for years, and I could point out several far more glaring bugs that caused actual serious unfair advantage, and were let slide, and the players in question fully keeping the skills they exploited.  You want me to start listing each incident?   I've been playing for a while, and in my time I've seen quite a few.        

 

In this instance, there is already items being introduced to give players the ability to paint ships, and if it lets them paint anything larger than a Knarr, then it actually has more fuctionally then those containers.  

 

One question though is that 600 "Fountain Containers" or 600 "Saucepan Fountains"?

 

There is a big difference in functionality here.    The Saucepan fountains allow things you put in the fountain to get heat, however many other fountain containers are made out of satchels or backpacks.   I own a satchel fountain and it's nothing more to me than something I can put sap in,  during maple season.   I've been playing for 5 years and have seen that the saucepan fountains, and the like are VERY rare compared to what I have, Backpack Fountains are far more  common even than that.     

 

I want to know if in fact there are so many of those things.  I've never seen evidence of that.    In my entire kingdom on the server that the bug first was discovered I've not seen more than two dozen of the saucepan fountain containers.   I do see a lot of backpack fountains, and one person had a ship full of them that was stolen and distributed across the freedom servers several years ago.

 

So how its it that your claiming that so many players have in their possession supposedly a "Gamebreaking" item, something that as far as I've seen really doesn't make a massive difference? the properties of the saucepan fountains are nice for smiths, etc but I've gotten along fine without it. And the cooking guides I've used to level up HFC, work just as well, for players without them.

 

I don't even use my satchel fountain for most of my maple harvests, just when I need to gather lots of low level stuff I don't feel like separating into barrels in my cart.   They used to be prized for hauling dirt, but we have crates now, so meh. 

 

They are a legacy item, and like you say we like them for sentimental value in many cases.   I don't see too much more beyond that.    

 

Before you go off and tell us we need to get rid of them, please build a better argument for your case.    Also please separate your figures, or show me how the hell you got 600 "Saucepan Fountains" Or, is that your "Generic" term for all fountain containers?    This does need clarification.    I do feel it's highly unfair for you throw a fit because players can heat lots of objects in a forge if they have a sacuepan fountain, and then forget many, if not most of the containers are not  saucepan fountains, or as far as I've seen.    They are backpack fountains, or satchel fountains, etc.    

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This issue has been fixed, large barrels which hold 250L can now be carried (and also have the advantage of not weighing an additional 125 kgs to begin with)

There are now also small and large amphoras which can also hold high volumes of liquids

Seems that the problem is fixed, you have created alternatives. That brings me to another question, what else are you trying to "fix", what is the purpose of this topic? Do you ask us, the players, should you rename this item? Who cares how it is called.

Just seems, that staff has been bored and created an artificial obstacle for themselves, now they are trying in the spotlight heroically overcome that obstacle.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say change them to a distinct item.

This is not because of how they are now (harmless) but because of how things might change in the future and bugs that might emerge as the code develops.

As a reference : I do not have one, nor does anyone I know (that I am aware of).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • For myself i would mind seeing thos changed. ofcourse id rather see nothing but its something..

 

Renaming those containers (usually fountains) to "Source Rift" or something similar indicating they have created an anomaly. Also changing their actual item template so they are a completely different item.

Making existing items containing these anomalies permanently immovable.

Making these anomalies heat a bit slower

Potentially increasing the storage size of magic chests.

New anomalies would not be able to be created (legacy item)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

remove from game, they are a overpowered item caused by a bug


 


while you are at it make drake and scale on epic able to be imped with leather 


Edited by Nahjo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rename them to a source rift and make them a single item (rather than something inside something else). Give the item a "charge" where existing rifts are fully charged but lose charges through use. At low charge the item causes things inside to decay or allows a lower volume (either of both). As a source rift, you could either charge it with source (limit the supply) or have the process to recharge it decided by time or by something grindy. My impression is that if the item is unused by people currently holding it then it should retain its functionality until used. That would allow for a granular loss of value for people who invested in it.


 


An uncharged source rift should either be createable or purchaseable and should then be charged up over time. Perhaps the max level of charge following use should drop, to stop absurd volume from being grandfathered in forever. Extensive use of the legacy item should transform it into an item other people can reasonably make, so that it eventually becomes something we can all accept the use of. I've never owned one, so I don't quite appreciate how overpowered they are, but requiring some sort of effort to continually use them would help bring balance to what it currently a fairly broken item.


Edited by Ols

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My only concern with leaving them in-game is the ability to bypass the decay rules.  Assuming decay is a major feature of the game for a reason, mainly database efficiency/performance, then continuing to allow containers can be used to ignore decay on potentially tens of thousands of items isn't good for the game as a whole.


 


If there's no issue with non-decaying items, from a performance perspective, then I don't see why the dev team is even looking at them, so I have to assume decay is the reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My only concern with leaving them in-game is the ability to bypass the decay rules.  Assuming decay is a major feature of the game for a reason, mainly database efficiency/performance, then continuing to allow containers can be used to ignore decay on potentially tens of thousands of items isn't good for the game as a whole.

 

If there's no issue with non-decaying items, from a performance perspective, then I don't see why the dev team is even looking at them, so I have to assume decay is the reason.

 

Can you put more than 100 items in a fountain pan? When it comes to things like these I think the changes should come into effect on use, so heavily using a source rift with loads of items should cause it to lose charge and eventually become more reasonable in power. Bypassing the decay rules isn't so much of an issue in my opinion because people seem to use them to store consumables, which they'll eventually remove from the database by using them. A possible solution is to provide some kind of magical bsb item as part of a compensation package for people having their pan deleted, and have this bsb bulk store some of these items without the significant ql or volume loss that eventually comes from dumping thousands of items into a bsb. Like what I proposed above, this bsb could function on charge that would need to be replenished at the cost of effort or money at a later date.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you put more than 100 items in a fountain pan? When it comes to things like these I think the changes should come into effect on use, so heavily using a source rift with loads of items should cause it to lose charge and eventually become more reasonable in power. Bypassing the decay rules isn't so much of an issue in my opinion because people seem to use them to store consumables, which they'll eventually remove from the database by using them. A possible solution is to provide some kind of magical bsb item as part of a compensation package for people having their pan deleted, and have this bsb bulk store some of these items without the significant ql or volume loss that eventually comes from dumping thousands of items into a bsb. Like what I proposed above, this bsb could function on charge that would need to be replenished at the cost of effort or money at a later date.

 

You dont put them in the pan, you put them in the fountain inside, but no 100 items is the limit. What you can do though is nest other things. So you can dump loads of barrels in there, other fountains pans etc and basically have a moveable house in a cart which is the best thing ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this