FOUNTAIN-PAN REVISION - CLOSES NOV 1st

[Ols 306]

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.

 

Yeah, so what's clear to me is that turning them into a source rift should disable the ability to place further containers inside. The interior volume of the rift should have an upper limit. Making a maze of containers inside containers is definitely not something that should remain in any form.

[Druidnature 1,118]

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.

 

You may as well delete them at that point, Thats going back to the entire point people enjoy these and we want to see more of these type items.

 

Going back to making wurm a extra few days to Work in a week.

[kochinac 1,395]

Once again, this is not about anything other than working out a balance of keeping these items ingame, not about who got what when and why.

 

PLease keep it on topic guys and girls

The balance is fine and there is no need for change. There you go.

[Druidnature 1,118]

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 

 

How so? Decay? my friend has 10 alts holding things for him, Other then meals, how is that any different?

[Evilvision 301]

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.

But there is a big difference between all these extra items. I agree most decay on deed needs to go but at the same time we cant clutter the database. People on deeds create a lot of items. I know depending on the jobs im doing i can create a few thousand woodscraps, hundreds of meals, tons of logs, hundreds of filets, thousands of rockshards surface mining or mining on deed.

 

Now factor in everyone else doing this on deed. Each item created is a entry in the database enlarging it. The more bloated it gets the more performance drops and then we have people complaining of lag. So while there may not be a difference between 500 and 5000 there sure is between 500 and 1.6 million items which is what indy has on average. If 0 items decayed this number could skyrocket fast.

 

The FSB and BSB's were designed to take all those entries and reduce them to 1to keep the database from really exploding. While I do not like the tax imposed for the luxury of bulk storage I could easily live with that if most other on deed decay was removed from armor stands, weapons racks etc........ and their contents. Seems silly to buy a bunch of magic chests to stack in your house to store your stuff in because the actual container made for it sucks.

[Yarnball 197]

The argument against fountain containers due to database load is non-sense. There were issues years ago yes, then Bsbs and FSBs were implemented, shard/dirt decay timers were increased house decay timers were just generally randomized and broken and not a single word more has been uttered about them since. Fountain containers have been around since any of these issues and were never brought up before now as a contributing factor. Celebration, Pristine, release and Xanadu have all been introduced in the mean time and no word of database difficult has been mentioned. There have not been more containers made in the time since these servers were brought around, and billions of more database entries were added due to these servers. Even if there are 1.6million items (random estimate cited from previous post) nested in these containers, that hasn't changed the function of over all capacity of the fountain containers. A few things have destroyed some of these containers over time, how many exactly is anyone guess. I know of people that have lagged and pulled the fountain out, I know of people that tried to improve/repair the fountain or container itself and the fountain fell out, I know of ones that were locked away on deeds and decayed away. But to point at fountain containers and assume the million and some items in those containers are detrimental to the DB when there are thousands of corpses with exponentially more of items sitting on them dying and decaying day by day is flawed at best.

[Jberg 3,070]

I'm just wondering; What emergency has happened to make this an issue that must be dealt with now of all times? What spare time in the day did the developers at Code Club find in their schedule to take a look and spend time balancing(!) something that has been in game since August 29 2008. Are they not aware of things being severely broken in many respects right now?

For some quick examples - the hunted system and the catapulting system.

Or, some things that absolutely should be getting high priority right at this moment to get the Wurm Unlimited player base securely established?

For example - Customization of server options, language support, mission system overhaul... and so on and so forth.

I'm just so confused... why is this happening now?

[JakeRivers 2,921]

I'm just wondering; What emergency has happened to make this an issue that must be dealt with now of all times? What spare time in the day did the developers at Code Club find in their schedule to take a look and spend time balancing(!) something that has been in game since August 29 2008. Are they not aware of things being severely broken in many respects right now?

For some quick examples - the hunted system and the catapulting system.

Or, some things that absolutely should be getting high priority right at this moment to get the Wurm Unlimited player base securely established?

For example - Customization of server options, language support, mission system overhaul... and so on and so forth.

I'm just so confused... why is this happening now?

 

Seems odd for a Gamemaster to be asking these types of questions.

[Kadore 926]

Seems odd for a Gamemaster to be asking these types of questions.

I'm sure the Dev team works independently of most of the GM's and they get a list of the new rules the same as the rest of us.

[Kadore 926]

I'm just wondering; What emergency has happened to make this an issue that must be dealt with now of all times? What spare time in the day did the developers at Code Club find in their schedule to take a look and spend time balancing(!) something that has been in game since August 29 2008. Are they not aware of things being severely broken in many respects right now?

For some quick examples - the hunted system and the catapulting system.

Or, some things that absolutely should be getting high priority right at this moment to get the Wurm Unlimited player base securely established?

For example - Customization of server options, language support, mission system overhaul... and so on and so forth.

I'm just so confused... why is this happening now?

Be interesting to find out what percentage of the Dev team has been around since 2008.

[Uberknot 327]

Make it do everything the new item does and that's it no special anything or properties.

 

Being able to put it into another container like seems kind of lame if you ask me.....

Edited October 28, 2015 by Uberknot

[KanePT 699]

Only here is this a discussion...

It was a bug, it was exploited, it was removed. People kept abusing it by selling the item.

People that sold it and bought should be banned, not babied. The item should be removed. Its A BUG, you admitted it in the first paragraph!

Now, making any new kind of container or system that allows ships to be dyed without that, that would be the right answer for their use and retarded price.

Add the new item, remove the fountain pans, give the people with a fountain pan one of the new items.

 

[Jberg 3,070]

Seems odd for a Gamemaster to be asking these types of questions.

Why would that be? It's a completely legitimate question, and as a Game Master, my concern is obviously getting the serious issues of the game addressed. I do not understand how you can take this any other way.

[Retrograde 12,013]

I'm just wondering; What emergency has happened to make this an issue that must be dealt with now of all times? What spare time in the day did the developers at Code Club find in their schedule to take a look and spend time balancing(!) something that has been in game since August 29 2008. Are they not aware of things being severely broken in many respects right now?

For some quick examples - the hunted system and the catapulting system.

Or, some things that absolutely should be getting high priority right at this moment to get the Wurm Unlimited player base securely established?

For example - Customization of server options, language support, mission system overhaul... and so on and so forth.

I'm just so confused... why is this happening now?

 

This discussion is a byproduct of the ability to now carry large barrels and huge tubs as well as the addition of amphoras. Doing so caused a note that fountain containers would be removed which is what sparked player discussion.

 

Any change itself will not be a huge investment of time or code so don't think this is operating at the cost of not working on things to ensure that Wurm Unlimited is fully supported.

 

This is an opportunity for us to gather player feedback on the situation, to improve communication on an issue and be transparent about our actions in the hope of continuing this down the line with subjects and issues that cover a much broader percentage of the playerbase.

[Kegan 3,926]

Why would that be? It's a completely legitimate question, and as a Game Master, my concern is obviously getting the serious issues of the game addressed. I do not understand how you can take this any other way.

Well you do have ways of doing it that is not in the public eye it just looks bad when the staff does not support the developers..well in my opinion anyway.   

Edited October 28, 2015 by Kegan

[Audrel 2,223]

While you are in there, remove the meditation skills from all those people who used that exploit. Set them to zero. The pan people are being set to zero. Why stop there.

[Retrograde 12,013]

I've read through the past.. now 13 pages and it seems the following are the most supported:

 

• Renaming and combining into one item
  
• making it immobile - untradeable, unliftable (thus ensuring functionality for current owners, yet eliminating them from the future market)
  

Now there are other ideas floating around, such as:

 

• expansion of magic chest size in general
  
• making this a trader item
  
• Potentially adjusting the amount they can hold.
  
• non repairable (though in a no decay chest it renders the option moot)
  

 

I will be making note of those, and other options as well, but would like feedback on the individual ideas listed here (given that name/item change is not really a "suggestion" as it will be happening, it's more in regards to the remaining functions)

 

Bear in mind that in the end it comes down to developmental and game direction, but we would like to reach a mutually beneficial decision that most, if not everyone can agree on

[Kegan 3,926]

Well all the containers need to be all the same and made so they are not a fountain inside of an unrealistic object for sure.

[Asciana 303]

I've read through the past.. now 13 pages and it seems the following are the most supported:

 

• Renaming and combining into one item

making it immobile - untradeable, unliftable (thus ensuring functionality for current owners, yet eliminating them from the future market)

Now there are other ideas floating around, such as:

 

• expansion of magic chest size in general

making this a trader item

Potentially adjusting the amount they can hold.

non repairable (though in a no decay chest it renders the option moot)

 

I will be making note of those, and other options as well, but would like feedback on the individual ideas listed here (given that name/item change is not really a "suggestion" as it will be happening, it's more in regards to the remaining functions)

 

Bear in mind that in the end it comes down to developmental and game direction, but we would like to reach a mutually beneficial decision that most, if not everyone can agree on

When you say immobile do you mean it will literally be stuck to the ground unable to move or do you mean wherever it is when the changeover happens, its stuck there unable to be moved out of anything?

[Retrograde 12,013]

When you say immobile do you mean it will literally be stuck to the ground unable to move or do you mean wherever it is when the changeover happens, its stuck there unable to be moved out of anything?

Basically the item would be stuck in whatever container it was in originally, if placed in a no decay container, the option is to have them unable to be taken out, or moved to another container.

 

Alternatively, if they could be taken out, they would be unable to be put back, and decay at a faster rate

[Fairyshine 3,183]

Retrograde, I believe there as many voices in here saying rename them and then leave them alone, to be used as currently used.  I also see, with the voices requesting these items to remain as legacy items and unchanged in functionality, many, many voices asking for smelting furnaces to smelt more than 100 ores at a time, seeing as painting of ships are already now an option with the way barrels can be taken when full, this is a great addition. 

 

If I understand this correctly, if people place them inside a steel magical chest inside a forge, they will become immovable, rendering both the forge and the chest useless, since you cant load either while there is something in side of it?  And the moment we unload the pan from either the chest or the forge, they are forever out and can never go back inside of it since you cannot load into chests inside of forges?  Or will the current owner still be able to load them back into the chest inside of the forge?  Please clarify, I cannot see how someone can be expected to choose a forge to place them in and then lose the option to move said forge by loading it, forever?

 

Also, will the last person who handled the pan then become the owner?  This will be imperative as many were sold off and given away, and thus the current owners should be the true owners.

 

What happens if a pan was stored inside the inventory of an alt or inside a bank account?

 

In answer to your suggestions:

 

• Renaming: Seems fine
  
• Making immobile: More info needed as per my questions above.  They should be loadable inside of forges and magical chests by current owners, as often as they want to.
  
• Expansion of magical chests: This seems reasonable since the reason so many pans were sold in the first place is basically to expand inventory and container caps, to allow better game play experiences for wurmians
  
• Trader item: Why not?  Silvers for Code Club
  
• Amount they can hold: I would prefer this option of no other changes were made except renaming them.  Making them slightly smaller in holding capacity (focus on slightly, to bring in line with current magical chests perhaps?) but still make them takable, tradable, like they currently are.
  
• Non repairable: No.  These items should remain as legacy items in the game, it is one of the few quirky things that build Wurm history and lore, like the watersword.
  

 

Thanks.

[Niki 2,278]

Basically the item would be stuck in whatever container it was in originally, if placed in a no decay container, the option is to have them unable to be taken out, or moved to another container.

 

Alternatively, if they could be taken out, they would be unable to be put back, and decay at a faster rate

Why? Not being able to move them really sucks and I don't see many people saying this, especially if any of us that own them want to move to another server. Just make them untradeable if you want them to stop being sold.

 

I also agree with fairyshine, make them a trader item for 50s-1g or something - but let people sell them if that happens.

Edited October 28, 2015 by Niki

[Castile 167]

WOW!!!!

 This whole argument is causing me flashbacks to the not to long ago and not forgotten handling of the trader fiasco. There we were dealing with a situation that was not a bug or an exploit and many of us who had just spent a lot of money on them were just screwed out of it by a backdoor rewrite of the code. I see no reason that the owners of fountains should expect anything different to be handed to them Good Luck.

[Retrograde 12,013]

Retrograde, I believe there as many voices in here saying rename them and then leave them alone, to be used as currently used.  I also see, with the voices requesting these items to remain as legacy items and unchanged in functionality, many, many voices asking for smelting furnaces to smelt more than 100 ores at a time, seeing as painting of ships are already now an option with the way barrels can be taken when full, this is a great addition. 

 

If I understand this correctly, if people place them inside a steel magical chest inside a forge, they will become immovable, rendering both the forge and the chest useless, since you cant load either while there is something in side of it?  And the moment we unload the pan from either the chest or the forge, they are forever out and can never go back inside of it since you cannot load into chests inside of forges?  Or will the current owner still be able to load them back into the chest inside of the forge?  Please clarify, I cannot see how someone can be expected to choose a forge to place them in and then lose the option to move said forge by loading it, forever?

 

Also, will the last person who handled the pan then become the owner?  This will be imperative as many were sold off and given away, and thus the current owners should be the true owners.

 

What happens if a pan was stored inside the inventory of an alt or inside a bank account?

 

In answer to your suggestions:

 

• Renaming: Seems fine

Making immobile: More info needed as per my questions above.  They should be loadable inside of forges and magical chests by current owners, as often as they want to.

Expansion of magical chests: This seems reasonable since the reason so many pans were sold in the first place is basically to expand inventory and container caps, to allow better game play experiences for wurmians

Trader item: Why not?  Silvers for Code Club

Amount they can hold: I would prefer this option of no other changes were made except renaming them.  Making them slightly smaller in holding capacity (focus on slightly, to bring in line with current magical chests perhaps?) but still make them takable, tradable, like they currently are.

Non repairable: No.  These items should remain as legacy items in the game, it is one of the few quirky things that build Wurm history and lore, like the watersword.

 

Thanks.

Determining the owner of the container would be creating more issues if just allowing the owner to move it, thus rendering it immobile.

 

While this would mean them being permanent in their location, there would also be a window in which players will be informed of the changes, and these changes going live, allowing those who wish to make arrangements (or indeed sell) can.

 

Prior to the ability to load large magic chests themselves were immobile, as were many other things, which seemed to operate just fine, as i said before, there will be a window allowing players to make adjustments.

 

expansion of magic chests would not occur in tandem with these items, more as a trade off for reduced functionality of these containers.

Why? Not being able to move them really sucks and I don't see many people saying this, especially if any of us that own them want to move to another server. Just make them untradeable if you want them to stop being sold.

 

I also agree with fairyshine, make them a trader item for 50s-1g or something - but let people sell them if that happens.

The issue lies in the fact that "untradeable" can be bypassed, by simply loading into someone elses wagon or cart/ship.

 

Making this a trader item is at this moment more time and coding effort than we're looking at, there are a lot of ongoing projects and this is a small piece of it all.

 

 

WOW!!!!

 This whole argument is causing me flashbacks to the not to long ago and not forgotten handling of the trader fiasco. There we were dealing with a situation that was not a bug or an exploit and many of us who had just spent a lot of money on them were just screwed out of it by a backdoor rewrite of the code. I see no reason that the owners of fountains should expect anything different to be handed to them Good Luck.

 

There are always areas in which we can improve, this thread and discussion is a way of us avoiding issues that impact the community negatively in the future.

[Niki 2,278]

Using owner and permissions make them work like large carts or boats, allow the owner to move them at least, transfer ownership. Not allowing them to be moved or loaded will just create more drama. If you don't want to code an alternate solution here, which seems like you could easily apply to them.