FOUNTAIN-PAN REVISION - CLOSES NOV 1st

[tgod 456]

I really don't understand why this is even a concern of the dev team with all the other issues in the game.  Personally I would let them be.  Would you add artifacts to freedom if enough ranted?

 

When you do things right people wont be sure you've done anything at all.

[Lostone 93]

Simply let them keep the items , just make them no longer be traded in any meens possible.

It was stated long ago that one day such bugs would be fixed and removed , so buyer beware.

 

There are more importent things need worked on , such as combat , distance from mobs is wonkers , RNG is stupid trying to hit a mob that should die from one hit depending on your lvl.

[Druidnature 1,118]

Simply let them keep the items , just make them no longer be traded in any meens possible.

It was stated long ago that one day such bugs would be fixed and removed , so buyer beware.

There are more importent things need worked on , such as combat , distance from mobs is wonkers , RNG is stupid trying to hit a mob that should die from one hit depending on your lvl.

Offtopic a bit but mobs can be one shotted pretty easily once your skills are high and a good quality weapon especially huge axes.

[Zivirt 349]

i'd say just leave them in the game, this coming from someone who doesn't own any fountain containers

[kochinac 1,395]

To be complete honest,i don't care about is it legacy item, about it's name, about can i paint ship, etc. Only thing that upsets me is that i spent 60s that i worked hard for ingame for one of it 2 weeks before announced that they will be removed. Why i bought it? Simple, because i wanted larger non decay storage space and thought this will not happen because people are using them for years for that. I agree they sound stupid, they make no sence, they are bug, but that should have been handled years ago and i should not suffer because it didn't. If you have to remove them, perhaps make magical chests able to store more items, they are magial ffs and reimburse me on appropiate manner. Even if i loose the functionality they provided me, only thing that seems unfair to me is the money i wasted on it that i could have spend on something else and that's the developers fault for not removing them on time.

[enoofu 206]

The best solution is to make them decay out in 6 months no repairable(for banking/Magic chest also), increase magic chests by around 300%-500% ,  and do a smelter, http://forum.wurmonline.com/index.php?/topic/93961-smelting-furnace/

[Druidnature 1,118]

The best solution is to make them decay out in 6 months no repairable(for banking/Magic chest also), increase magic chests by around 300%-500% , and do a smelter, http://forum.wurmonline.com/index.php?/topic/93961-smelting-furnace/

So if your gonna add in similar (actually better) why make them decay instead of keeping them a artifact item?

That's a sure fire way to piss people off.

[Amadee 1,543]

I don't own any, but I agree that those who do should not be penalized in any way.  They were allowed to remain for years, long enough to be considered legitimate, regardless of what may or may not have been said years ago.  No one at CC corrected the wiki statement, nor warned anyone buying/selling them for outrageous amounts on these forums.

 

Seems to me that if changing the name will solve whatever problem it's being said is now happening because of these items, then that would be the best solution for everyone involved.  I say "involved" because those like myself, who don't own them, won't be affected and therefore shouldn't care.  I know I sure don't.  Won't affect me in the least.  lol.

 

I also think that increasing the capacity of magic chests would be a good thing for a couple of reasons.  1) It might help smooth the ruffled feathers of those who resent not having one of the "artifacts" themselves due to cost and/or availability and would rather see all those who do have them get penalized.  and  2)  In my opinion, the cost of a magic chest has never seemed worth the capacity so I've never bought one.  It they held more, I'd probably take the plunge. 

Edited October 26, 2015 by Amadee

[Kegan 3,926]

I also think that increasing the capacity of magic chests would be a good thing for a couple of reasons.  1) It might help smooth the ruffled feathers of those who resent not having one themselves due to cost and/or availability and would rather see all those who do have them get penalized.  and  2)  In my opinion, the cost of a magic chest has never seemed worth the capacity so I've never bought one.  It they held more, I'd probably take the plunge. 

I had a fountain container once and i was afraid to do anything with it because it was an exploited item and i was afraid of losing my investment if i did something to mess it up. I would rather just see magic chest function better then at least if there was an issue i could get it fixed with a support or something because it is a supported item in the game. 

 

Let them keep the fountain containers or whatever does not matter to me but we want improved storage for magic chests too.

Edited October 26, 2015 by Kegan

[akaedis 429]

My input:

 

-Make magic chests bigger

-Change fountain pans to this rift item, Make them slowly decay even when in magic chests.

-Let players sell these "anomalies" for 10s each at a settlement token or trader. (This could be re-used for other un-intended legacy items that need to be drained out of the system)

[MetalDragon 1,630]

The quote may even have been part of a wurm Q/A session but I forget.

Leave them in game, these items hurt nobody, other than not having the benefit other players have by owning one. I never saw the big deal other than a slight advantage over other people having it. As stated by another person and exampled Runescape, Partyhats were a once drop item which have gained super bonus wealth over the years as they grow more rare, these give people 'end game item' goals which are always fun.

Is there any reason why we can't keep them ingame AND increase the sizes of magical chests (I mean, they /are/ magical), this mean everybody wins? magic chests and fountain backpacks have pretty much the same sort of concept, you have to buy BOTH of them the only difference is fountainpans increase in price but regardless of the outcome you're still paying silvers for them.

We have mboks and boks which also increase in value, albeit not bugs, not many people are complaining about owning these, the only reason you don't hear much about these is because it wasn't caused by a "bug".

Is there actually a technical problem why these items need to have some action taken against them, or is it for the "benefit of the players fairness"? I've been shafted multiple times playing the game where I've missed an opportunity to benefit with things, if we proceed with removing these items, will other items follow? (multi enchanted weapons/armour that shouldn't be)

tl;dr - keep them how they are, if needs be change the name (does it matter?) and make magical chests bigger so those who dislike the items will get a bonus as well, if needs be introduce more.

Edited October 26, 2015 by MetalDragon

[enoofu 206]

So if your gonna add in similar (actually better) why make them decay instead of keeping them a artifact item?

That's a sure fire way to piss people off.

Believe the problem is that this bug is based on the current relationships between bags and fountains which may not exist in future builds

 

 

I'm also afraid if they create a new item, it may be exploited or have unintended consequences if they create a new item with people that have them

[aamanus 1,488]

If these are causing issues with the current code framework, why not replicate the functionality in a new item, capable of holding as much as a fountain but with an outer volume of something more akin to a satchel or pan or whatever.  Make them available on traders for 50s (or whatever price is deemed reasonable) and that way everything is hunky-dory for all.

[Druidnature 1,118]

Believe the problem is that this bug is based on the current relationships between bags and fountains which may not exist in future builds

I'm also afraid if they create a new item, it may be exploited or have unintended consequences if they create a new item with people that have them

That's fair, though always ways to prevent moving the item into them if needed.

[Nappy 1,369]

I like the idea of creating a fountain pan equivalent that is sold on a trader for a reasonable price. Anyone owning a fountain pan can trade it for the item at no cost at a trader. Others who just want the storage option can purchase it at the trader.

 

If you match the capacity then you are being fair to existing owners while providing the rest of us with the opportunity to also have similar capabilities.

 

Seems like a Win-Win to me because you can also get rid of the exploit condition this way, you make existing owners happy and everyone else gets to purchase the item too.

 

~Nappy

[Naio 675]

yep, agree with fountain pan equivalent as a reasonable price (50s or so?) and let existing fountain pans be traded in, then everyone's happy.

[Druidnature 1,118]

yep, agree with fountain pan equivalent as a reasonable price (50s or so?) and let existing fountain pans be traded in, then everyone's happy.

Not everyone, that's still removing a "artifact" from the game, though I won't argue it for only that reason.

However we still need the forge part. and personally I say that should be crafted not bought Or just increase the current forges weight.

Edited October 26, 2015 by Druidnature

[Naio 675]

Not everyone, that's still removing a "artifact" from the game, though I won't argue it for only that reason.

However we still need the forge part. ane personally I say that should be made, not crafted. Or just increase the current forges weight.

 option to trade them in does not mean require to trade them in.  people that want to keep them should feel free

[Druidnature 1,118]

option to trade them in does not mean require to trade them in. people that want to keep them should feel free

That would be fair then

Also, meant forges should be crafted, not bought*. Screwed that entire sentence up. Lol

[aamanus 1,488]

Eh, if there's a good reason to remove them, and we want to maintain the 'legacy'ness of them for existing owners, just give them rare or uniquely named ones upon trade in or some such.  I can understand the developers want to remove an item that goes against the mechanics (larger container inside a smaller container).  

 

Hell, they might even make the new containers lighter than a fountain container, so it'd be an upside for existing owners too.

[Aum 771]

what i use my fountain pan for,

well it sits in my steel magic chest in my forge so that while im taking a break for a few days all the things dont take dmg. which is great, i think that functionality should be for everyone, i dont mind if you start selling steel magic chests again that are bigger , and pans of holding or whatever.

 

but i dont want to loose that functionality of having a large magically protected space in my forge, i believe it makes the game better, i believe it should be available to everyone.

 

i believe its at times like this that one must say that this is a chance to improve the game, that in an ever changing world, we must do the thing that expands the game and offer's more viability to players that some have enjoyed, such as with the large pottery item we can use to paint ships now, a source rift item that expands a magical chest that is available on shop for 50s? is exactly what we need

 

the source rift item which should be a single container , that is small as a pan, it cannot burn, takes normal dmg, does not magicaly protect,and it can hold as much as a fountain (or less and expand chest a bit for  trade),

in addition  that steel magic chests should be re introduced, and their capacity expanded a fair amount but sold for 70s or something

 

we like keeping things and amazing treasure chests in pvp im sure are also nice, and i think besides a huge graphics engine update wurm needs a few more things like this and to refine and expand its mystical nature to thrive and grow

 

imo anyways <3's to wurm

[Klaa 4,872]

Eh sold mine ages ago, so I'm good either way.

Only reason I would prefer them to stay in is for painting large items; though, not sure if the new pottery items fill that void.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwNIDcwfRLY

[Druidnature 1,118]

Eh sold mine ages ago, so I'm good either way.

Only reason I would prefer them to stay in is for painting large items; though, not sure if the new pottery items fill that void.

Pottery has that part covered luckily

[Ricowan 199]

This is the part of the top post that I'm concerned about: "Removing them would be a good idea because they are the cause of a bug..."

If these containers are causing a problem in the code then they need to be removed.  No doubt in my mind.  I don't want to touch the compensation issue; I don't have one and I'm not jealous of those who do.

 

If MamaDarkness meant ".. because they were created by exploiting a bug..." instead of what was written, then I agree that they should be allowed to remain in the game.

[demondan 1,865]

So as long as I have the ability to use the container to paint larger ships, which was exclusive to fountain containers then I really don't care. I shouldn't have to buy a bugged item to do something In game that should be able to be done without purchasing bugged items. That is just silly