FOUNTAIN-PAN REVISION - CLOSES NOV 1st

[Jberg 3,070]

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.

Hard changes bring about bugs - if you don't understand this, you haven't been playing wurm online at all. And, if they have time for "not huge investments of time", I'd actually prefer they took time out of their busy days and actually wrote proper god damned patch notes. I'm certain the community (NOW BOTH WURM ONLINE AND WURM UNLIMITED!) would appreciate this more.

[SmeJack 5,800]

a fountain pan allows the smelting of 60 ores at once, or 2x that of a forge, which is hardly a great advantage.

 

No offence but thats a pretty poor downplay, its slightly more than double and its also assuming only one is used. I feel like because it wasnt your favourable use then it simply doesnt matter.

 

Just for the record I have these and dont really care that they get deleted, it has always been a risk with a clearly bugged item. I do however feel that at this point they just need to be made redundant rather than removed. And by redundant I mean in all their uses not just the ones someone decides are more important.

[Kianga 219]

I was at the end of the chain with traders... Knowing I was about to enter a hard time financially RL, I bought a few of those when I still could, hoping that would enable me to keep playing wurm in the way I liked it. Few weeks later, bam - nerfed into the ground, with what they now give I will have to keep playing for approx. 10.5 years (yes thats the real figure, not something made up) to even make my invested money back, let alone win anything from them. It might not have been meant as a Ponzi-scheme setup - but it sure did feel like it was! And I was very very close to leaving the game at that point. Developers doing this to the RL-money of people... was I going to play their game any longer?

 

A few weeks back, my exploring brought me to a fallen place where there were a few fountainsatchels to be found. Again, I hoped keeping one for convenience, while selling the other few, would give me a second chance to play the game the way I like it. Few weeks later, bam... Unsellable for any decent price, and likely almost unusable after nerfing too.

 

I won't be losing out money directly from this one like I did with traders, thankfully. But again, it feels like the same kind of scheme... it will cost a lot of people a lot of RL-money, and a lot of convenience. Not due to their own decisions, but again due to the developers - while stating the existence of these items don't hurt anything code-wise, but still... 'we are going to do it. because that's what we got into our head somehow' (while time might well be better spent fixing things that *are* broken?).

 

And don't say 'slowly killing them' isn't killing them, because of course it is just that. And 'but then sell them'.. well thats just worth a shrug now isn't it, besides many don't want to sell them but want to go on using them as-is.

 

I hope one bright day the developers of this game will come to the realization, that giving those who lack (or feel they lack as soon as they get to know others have more then they do, even if those others payed a lot for that while they didn't) instead of taking from those who have is *far*  more beneficial for any game as a whole and for it's playernumbers...

[Revnik 87]

_{Remove the existing item. Make a new item that is hard to craft, give one to everyone with the existing item. Current users retain their functionality, new/future players can eventually gain the functionality. Making them hard to craft doesn't retain the market value but doesn't total diminish it either. Both sides get a piece of what they want, but neither side gets their way.} 

 

_{(I don't have one, and have never been interested in spending the cash. I guess this is the opinion of someone "on the outside" aka a filthy casual.)}

[Lordterrabyte 139]

I didn't read all of this but what I got the most was this: a lot of people don't want things to decay and have to waste time repairing stuff all the time (I'mm one of those that feel if its on deed it should be safe from decay) e.g. I have 1k frypans for my priests its a real pain in the butt having to repair them all the time when they are on deed it'd be great if they didn't decay, even if that meant they took damage from use instead then i'd still be happy as they would only need attention when I use them a lot, its a lot of time to create things as it is and just as long to repair stuff at times too I've seen and even done it myself where hours have been spent repairing stuff on deed usually grumbling about it while i'm/they are doing it.

 

Atm imo it makes things like wardrobes kinda pointless as why use them if your armour, clothes are going to decay, weapons stands same deal why drop tools and such into any container knowing it'll decay.

I have thousands of dollars worth of tools in my shed irl and they don't decay because I put them down in their rightful storage space for future use. If its on deed and in a writ there should simply be no decay that's why people pay for deeds isn't it? To have a safe place to store stuff when they aren't playing. Sure there should be perishable goods too like meals, filets, lye, dyes and anything that can be stored in crates/bsbs/fsbs left lying round (on that wooden beams should fit in bsbs) and planters intended as a way of gaining gardening skill and seeing we have trash piles to throw unwanted stuff away and/or burn/smelt options its our choice then what stays and what goes.

 

My opinion on the fountain pans is that this is pretty much the core reason for both complaints of OP and the popularity of them. But unless they are breaking or preventing changes to the game I don't see any reason to remove them (i don't own one btw). If they have to go I feel the players should get something to replace them with of equal value and a window of opportunity of maybe a month to exchange them be in granted with email notices given to all players (if they don't check their email it's their problem then, you tried).

[Booskii 379]

+1 This seems like a fair trade if it's an option at all. The owners receive an equal useful item and everyone can get one also from a trader and the originals get removed/traded in for the replacement

Make a trader-sold item with similar functionality, sold for say 50s - this way they are accessible to players that want to invest the money.

Replace all existing items containers-inside-smaller-contianer with said item - this way current owners won't feel cheated out of money (they get something worth 50s instead) and it doesn't cost rolf anything.

[Sometouw 30]

If you are not going to provide a legit item that duplicates their functionality, remove them from the game entirely.

Doesn't matter how you do that really, but I would personally lean towards a steady decay rate.

[Ryshad 26]

Wow...not sure how/why, but I read through all 15 pages of this (admittedly skipping some of the essays when it became clear they weren't contributing anything other than page counts to the conversation).

 

One of the recurring questions seems to be "Why address this now?", and the answer is repeated several times in the thread when you take the time to read it:

 

In 2008 when these items were created, they were the ONLY way to hold enough dye to paint large items; removing them at the time would have removed that ability. THAT was the reason they were allowed to remain, and with the recent changes to tubs/barrels and addition of amphora, that reason no longer exists.

 

The people saying leave them alone, or rename and leave functionality have missed the point (as far as I've understood the dev's position): Other than holding large amounts of dye, any benefits the pan containers offered were undesirable and allowing the exploited items to remain in that state is not an option. Deleting them outright would understandably upset a lot of people, so some middle ground needs to be reached. What the dev's need to know is, what changes would hurt the least? What compromise would FP owners be willing to live with as an alternative to the FP going poof?

[Audrel 2,223]

There have been other lines of communication including PM's and IRC, apologies for insinuating that it was all in this thread, I am taking note of each persons suggestion though. The decision is ultimately up to the development team, this is an attempt to identify what changes are favourable, because there WILL be changes.

 

IRC. If you think a minority use forums, the minority of minorities hangs out in IRC. Pertinent discussions held there should be pasted here or directed to be posted here instead of there. The number of things decided in IRC between the tiny amount of people there is boggling. I thought we would see the end of this with the PvP fiasco and the whisperings in IRC ears. I guess not. 

 

As for the decision, it seems it was made before even asking for suggestions; also a typical event here. 

 

As to the gist of the matter, an actual smelter that holds more than a handful of ores would have been a nice thing 7 years ago when these things popped up, knowing how many people have and do use them. A forge is "a special fireplace, hearth, or furnace in which metal is heated before shaping." A smelter is used "to fuse or melt (ore) in order to separate the metal contained." Certainly fountain pans are not used for this but we lack a proper smelter. 

 

I don't even own one of these things and to think of the money made by CC through silver sales to buy these things and to keep them swimming around is enough to think they would be kept circulating. 

[tgod 456]

1. Put in hireable npcs (WU NPC system) for deeds that will repair any and all items on deed.  Items should still take the ql hit but have the npc start with 50+ repair.

2. Make new item for trader that will expand storage, trader sells for 50s, swap 1:1 for fountain pans

3. Don't play into all the whining so this doesn't happen again.

4. Start fixing existing bugs that have more impact.

5. Pick and choose from WU code mods that may fix EXISTING problems you don't have time or resources for.

6. Spawn valrei mobs on freedom for halloween.

[LorenaMontana 3,008]

We should care about relevant stuff instead of this nonsense.

Make priest spells keybindable fe.

15 pages full of fountain pan crap, it's unbelievable

[Tuanta 484]

Again i'll ask, "Why are we even talking about this?" What recently happened that's new in the last 7 years since they were introduced?

It's difficult to come up with suggestions for a "fix" if the issue/complaint isn't revealed.

 

The push towards leaving them in game yet making them immobile leads me to believe you no longer want them to be trade-able. Which leads me to believe there may have been issues with selling them.

 

For me, making them immobile would be no different that removing them outright with no compensation.

 

Suggestions:

1. Make a "GM Hall" statement that any bugged/exploited items can be removed from the game at the sole discretion of the development team (at any time) and that buying bugged items are at the buyers risk.
   
2. Ask everyone that owns them, how they use them and what they like most about them.
   
3. Look into the possible addition of items that might replace them but be available for everyone. The game has magic already, what's so bad about adding other magical items which support those needs?
   
4. Add code that will facilitate the removal of any bugged items. (When the item is (picked up, moved, accessed, examined, other?), a popup is displayed with a notice and options.) This could be used to deal with the fountain pan issue and provide replacement options for players.
   

[topkos 495]

Paying a sub, Paying Upkeep. After those 2 things dealing with decay. After playing many years, ANYONE becomes a pack rat, is almost unavoidable if you consistently play for many years.

We need more of these kind of containers, call em as you want, but for the loyal customer base they are a necessity . So make em craftable by people with 90 on some weird skill, or make em a trader item. Either way you will monetize...Ultimately the dev team is here with one purpose , make money for the owner..

A'm I wrong? This is a game for me..but a Business for the paid staff and the owner

There is nothing abusive, or unbalanced, or illegal in giving us an item that help us with the decay. Wurm Online is hard enough.  And expensive enough. 

 

And remember, we know that ultimately whatever happens its the dev team call. We  know that, We accept that when we buy into any game. But remember this too, you can't demand respect from your customers, you win respect...and listening to whispers in the dark rooms of dark chats with dark characters that don't want to make their dark opinion public, its a very easy and fast way to lose any respect.

Edited October 29, 2015 by topkos

[Kegan 3,926]

@Tuanta..Well in the OP they already said there was about 600 of them so they already have a way to find how many are in-game i would guess. 

 

@Everyone..I know that a lot of players that own them are upset but the thread is not about leaving them the way they are that is not an option. If it was then why would they have even made the post in the first place? It seems to me that the Developers wanted to take them out altogether but the GMs probably asked them not too so now they need to find ways to balance them so they can stay in game. The GMs have a list in the OP of what they come up with now they are here to get new ideas from you but all they are seeing is keep them the same but that is not an option from what they have said here a number of times already. 

 

Agree with it or not you have two days to come up with more ideas i guess before they decide what to do to balance them.  We don't know the problem they see with them but it just about has to be the decay i would think though. 

Edited October 29, 2015 by Kegan

[Sklo:D 2,210]

There is only one acceptable way to deal with them.

 

• Renaming them into source rifts and leave the function as it is right now.
  

Edited October 29, 2015 by Sklo:D

[Kegan 3,926]

 

There is only one acceptable way to deal with them.

 

• Renaming them into source rifts and leave the function as it is right now.

 

I am not sure on this but i think that list is a whole meaning all of them will be added in not just one. (The ones as "potentially" are the only options they had in their idea on balance) 

Edited October 29, 2015 by Kegan

[enoofu 206]

 

There is only one acceptable way to deal with them.

 

• Renaming them into source rifts and leave the function as it is right now.

 

you are confused on how they stated it, which means the renamed bags get changed into a new item so they are also removing nested bags

[kochinac 1,395]

If you are not going to provide a legit item that duplicates their functionality, remove them from the game entirely.

Doesn't matter how you do that really, but I would personally lean towards a steady decay rate.

And what's the point of steady decay? Just to prolong the agony, to make me watch how it dissapear everyday, just remove them immidietly in that case and spare me -.- Definetly NO on adding decay and norepairable on them in case they are not repurchable. 

[kochinac 1,395]

Wow...not sure how/why, but I read through all 15 pages of this (admittedly skipping some of the essays when it became clear they weren't contributing anything other than page counts to the conversation).

 

One of the recurring questions seems to be "Why address this now?", and the answer is repeated several times in the thread when you take the time to read it:

 

In 2008 when these items were created, they were the ONLY way to hold enough dye to paint large items; removing them at the time would have removed that ability. THAT was the reason they were allowed to remain, and with the recent changes to tubs/barrels and addition of amphora, that reason no longer exists.

 

The people saying leave them alone, or rename and leave functionality have missed the point (as far as I've understood the dev's position): Other than holding large amounts of dye, any benefits the pan containers offered were undesirable and allowing the exploited items to remain in that state is not an option. Deleting them outright would understandably upset a lot of people, so some middle ground needs to be reached. What the dev's need to know is, what changes would hurt the least? What compromise would FP owners be willing to live with as an alternative to the FP going poof?

And they needed 7 years to implement liquid container large enough to paint ships, or reduce amount of paint on the ships.Yeah right. I'm sorry but that's realy lame exuse for me and not argument at all for removing them now.

[Berris 587]

I just don't see how removing them improves any person's game experience.  

 

It will make a bunch of people's experience (of playing and of the customer service) significantly worse, and leave everyone else in exactly the same position they were in before.

 

If they stay in-game in a functionally identical (or very very similar) manner then fair enough I suppose - although at that point I don't see why it's worth changing them at all.

Edited October 29, 2015 by Berris

[Drentle 89]

Solution: Leave them as they are. They aren't hurting anything. Fix things that actually bring value to the game. If fountain pans are removed, count on a several players (who likely spend far more than 16e/2-months) leaving. You are taunting the wrong crowd here.

 

Let's weigh out the options.

 

1) You remove or nerf them and several people rage quit.

2) You leave them as they are and nothing changes. Do you think people who don't own them will quit? I doubt it.  Nothing will change for them. Everything remains the same as it has been for the last 7 years. They lose no money. They lose no item. They lose no convenience.  And as for new players, I don't see any reason why fountain pans would deter them from playing WO. It just isn't there.

 

The point is that far more harm will be done by removing/nerfing them than just leaving them be. Put your thinking caps on guys and don't fix things that aren't broken!

Edited October 29, 2015 by Drentle

[LorraineJ 1,099]

What are all the beneficial effects of the fountain pans? So far I see you can store a lot of things in one place; the things don't decay; you can heat up a lot of items without dealing with the drudgery of moving small bits at a time. What else? I'd love all of these functions. How about making:

 

- expanded-capacity forges, either craftable or buyable or both

- large-capacity storage items that nullify decay of all things, including fish and meals and raw meats, either craftable or buyable or both

- whatever the heck else nice function these items have, either craftable or buyable or both

- remove all on-deed decay (please I don't want to hear the argument that stuff on deed bogs down the game - the items in bins are just spreadsheet numbers, and the stuff that gets repaired gets repaired to the time-wasting frustration of most, and it's still there on the server, only it necessitated many more server interactions to keep it there)

 

Obviously players want these functions, or no one would have paid high prices for the pans. If for some reason the code of these items within items is making some disaster, and you truly must remove the pans, give the current owners any and all items needed to replace the functionality that the pans had. And maybe a present.

 

If a player enjoys decay, or moving ores a few at a time over some hours, well then they don't have to use the expanded capacity items. Maybe to make them happy you can even make mini-capacity forges that only heat like 7 ores at a time, so they can have even more busy work. And maybe there can be a mini cool-down forge, that only holds 3 lumps, so you have to heat 7 ores, cool three of the lumps, move the three into a bin, move three more from the mini forge to the mini cool-down forge, and if you're really fantastic you can coordinate sticking fresh ores into the forge while three are cooling, etc. And maybe you can make some kind of "paint" that can be applied to items on deed that will cause them to have super fast decay, necessitating constant repair. Make sure the paint needs to be made by someone who has at least 55 alchemy and 65 muscles of some sort, and even then will have a failure rate over 80%, and you have to mix it using clay flasks with 4 acorns in them, and pour that off 16 times at a proper ratio into a huge barrel that contains x gallons of mash made from the milk of a black sheep and maple syrup harvested at night within four tiles of a hell hound. There must be a 25-minute wait between each pouring. The painted item can then take on a special glow, and will be renamed "Honorable Mega-Decay (well, bin, etc.) of the True Warrior." "This is a Super Illustrious instance of a (well, etc.) that has been inbued with a most noble tincture of true grit, only found amongst the most esteemed and dedicated Wurmians on the whole server. It will f_cking decay instantly if it is not repaired within a 36-hour timeframe, day after day." **

 

Problem solved.

 

 

** Oops. Edit to add: "This item may NOT be purchased from a trader."

Edited October 29, 2015 by LorraineJ

[enoofu 206]

Believe the Devs/GM's have stated they are open for larger Forge's/Oven's/Magic Chest's, which would be benefits against No Lift New Bags they are thinking of replacing them with so it isn't all bad news

[Retrograde 12,013]

One of the options listed is an increase of storage space for no decay chests, would this be preferable to creating an entirely new item that causes a co-necessity? (if you get a no decay chest you MUST get this to expand storage, and if you get the expansion, you MUST get a no decay chest to hold it in)

[Kegan 3,926]

One of the options listed is an increase of storage space for no decay chests, would this be preferable to creating an entirely new item that causes a co-necessity? (if you get a no decay chest you MUST get this to expand storage, and if you get the expansion, you MUST get a no decay chest to hold it in)

I don't think that would be needed unless it offers a great deal more storage or a special attribute that is useful over the stock chests. It seems it would take less effort to just expand the existing chests over making a new item then having to put in on a trader for sale too.  

 

Edit: I guess it would offer more income to the game so it might be worth the effort to make a new item though. 

Edited October 29, 2015 by Kegan