OCD driving me insane!

[Erowynn 6]

Over the course of a few months since I started playing, various people who've lived on my deed have either moved or or quit playing without notice. By quit playing they've, either communicated they're not coming back, or failed to get back to me on multiple inquiries outside of the game. My suggestion comes into play here, when someone stops playing and has no intention on coming back we really really need a way to deal with locked items such as BSB to say the least of all the other items that can be locked.

I'm not the kind of player that really cares to control everything on deed, I like players have their own freedom. What doesn't make sense to me is how illogical it is to not allow the major of a village not be able to unlock specific items so that they can be removed or repurposed. It's driving me nuts! I have no way of removing or reusing stuff and I'm left with a giant mess... The solution shouldn't have to be, "push" everything off to a corner. I'm not sure how something like this can be addressed as I'm not aware of any other threads related to this topic, nor do I understand the development history of the game and the choices behind this specific decision. If anyone would like to comment in agreement or disagreement I'd like to hear your thoughts and equally it would be really nice to see a post from a developer on the matter.

From yours truly - a irritated new Wurm player! 😡

Edited July 23, 2020 by Erowynn

[Oblivionnreaver 5,175]

lava solves all

[Erowynn 6]

Just now, Oblivionnreaver said:

lava solves all

Wouldn't that require a mag priest? I don't know anything about being a priest. Or really anything that involves spells lol.

[Eobersig 1,006]

15 minutes ago, Erowynn said:

when someone stops playing and has no intention on coming back

 

There's no way a game mechanic can judge whether a player has the intention to come back or not. Thus what you are suggesting is that a mayor can do whatever he wants with items from villagers after that villager has not logged in for a set period that you did not specify.

 

Think about the consequences of such a mechanic.

[Erowynn 6]

9 minutes ago, Eobersig said:

 

There's no way a game mechanic can judge whether a player has the intention to come back or not. Thus what you are suggesting is that a mayor can do whatever he wants with items from villagers after that villager has not logged in for a set period that you did not specify.

 

Think about the consequences of such a mechanic.

Player in question quit permanently, they've discussed this with me and have no interest or will as they put it to log back in. As far as how long they've been gone. So far 97 days. I understand what consequences there might be for allowing a mayor to do whatever they please on a deed. But sure there's something sort of happy middle. Watching a BSB take 20 real life months to decay is quite insane. Considering it could be used instead of just sitting. I have 6 containers, I know it's not a lot, but as a really small deed owner all the space counts.

These containers are locked, so I actually have no physical way of pushing them off deed. let alone loading them in a cart which is preferred to where I can haul them far away.

Edited July 23, 2020 by Erowynn

[atazs 965]

11 minutes ago, Eobersig said:

 

There's no way a game mechanic can judge whether a player has the intention to come back or not. Thus what you are suggesting is that a mayor can do whatever he wants with items from villagers after that villager has not logged in for a set period that you did not specify.

 

Think about the consequences of such a mechanic.

Well i think if someone has been offline for X amount of days, their stuff should be destroyable or at least openable 

[Jeston 316]

30 minutes ago, atazs said:

Well i think if someone has been offline for X amount of days, their stuff should be destroyable or at least openable 

 

-1

[Wucian 4]

This is why permissions on my deed are very strict.  I don't allow people to plant things on my deed, and I don't permit people to lock things.  If they want to secure their things from others, they can use their 'locked home' to secure them just fine.

[Erowynn 6]

Just now, Wucian said:

This is why permissions on my deed are very strict.  I don't allow people to plant things on my deed, and I don't permit people to lock things.  If they want to secure their things from others, they can use their 'locked home' to secure them just fine.

Does locking a home affect your ability to remove if need be?

[Blablagame 9]

Just give players an option that lets them quit the game, delete their Char , unlock their stuff (and make their entire inventory drop into a corpse) where it falls under the normal decaying process, just that anyone could take their stuff if it's not protected by a deed and hide it deep in the UI, but make a forum post about it so that players that want to really delete their char can look up the solution on the forum (maybe discover it along the way and regain faith in wurm) and if they really decide to delete their char, do that

 

seen someone complaining about not being able to delete their char, this would fix that

 

maybe for players that just quit like that unlock everything after 1 month? although that'd make being away from wurm for more than one month impossible.. and also additional burden for the server..

[Erowynn 6]

I wonder if it would be too much work to implement a "vacation" system can be a hidden UI that allows players who're apart of deeds that are not their own to put their character in a vacation status. If they don't come back at the designated time, their containers become unlocked.

I don't think it's necessary they need to be removed immediately, just the whole lock situation is iffy. For some reason in my limited experience people I've interacted with in game. Particularly new players have not found the idea of not being able to lock their stuff, for whatever reason, untenable.

[wipeout 1,355]

A locked house that you have manage on will let you get rid of the house once they quit so that combined with no one but the house occupant and you can enter it it comes down to "do they trust the mayor to not steal if so its fine if they dont lock anything in their houses" thats how i used to do it in the village i used to run way back i owned the house after they constructed it but they had manage on it but could not plant or lock things and it worked out fine

[Kingsponge 78]

I must agree, I wish there was some sort of system to better deal with abandoned commodities rather than letting them decay for 82 years. Whether that allows them to be destroyed or reused by someone else 🤷‍♂️ (Something that can somehow know who's just MIA and who's straight up never coming back) 

For instance, there's a locked chest that's been left behind on what is now my deed. It would be nice to be able to reuse it or just poof it from existence as I'm throughly sure it's owner probably won't be returning for it 🤷‍♂️

[Ekcin 2,416]

9 hours ago, Erowynn said:

Wouldn't that require a mag priest? I don't know anything about being a priest. Or really anything that involves spells lol.

No. While erupt and freeze require either no or Magranon domain, they are meditation path commands, no priest spells. And indeed, lava just requires bit digging, less work than endlessly requiring game mechanic changes in forums.

Edited July 24, 2020 by Ekcin

[elentari 2,660]

This has been a topic that's been discussed and thrown around a lot, and I know I've made several suggestions on this one. You quit and dont login? 6 months pass by (which is a generous figure) and your stuff should be unlocked.

As for the argument "A mayor shouldn't have control of everything" I tend to disagree. I've had a deed on Epic for years and I needed to have control of everything precisely because people quit. The relationship of mayor-villager is a sacred one and reputation is valuable. Consider that at any point, a mayor can also kick you and your stuff will be locked away from you. But how often does that happen? I've never even heard of a case when a villager was kicked out of a deed that didn't also involve griefing from said player or general toxic behavior.

 

What's the alternative? People quit and leave your deed a mess? It's absurd that when someone quits, the mayor should go through the hassle of making a lava tile to destroy items. It's digital bureaucracy in a twisted way.

 

On freedom, before the RMT change, one of my villagers sold his accounts without telling me before hand. That left me in a vulnerable position where I didn't know the new owner and said accounts also had access  in many place on deed. Due to his house also being on an alt he doesn't access anymore I had to manually bash everything. 2 hours of my life, just because as a mayor I have limited perms to something I pay with in RL money. 

 

Mayors should have all perms and trust should be established. The alternative again is to create more hassle to mayors.  Just add a bloody system already that involves items on deed (house, fsb, bsb, carts, boats, etc) transfered to the mayor if said player quits. And please add a button in Wurm that says "I quit" = your stuff becomes unlocked after 1 month of inactivity (generous time period) so we know the player DOESN"T intend on logging in ever again. If we don't have delete character as an option (due to database corruption from what I've read) then add that button. It would help with longterm analytics as well.

[Idlamn 297]

This was recently discussed here. As someone coming from Epic, where lopckpicking was possible, I can say that, due to the more secure nature of Freedom, getting to abandoned stuff/moving it around has become somewhat of an absurd workaround with lava tiles. I would probably stick to lava tiles, as lockpicking is way more difficult, but I still find it a strange workaround, and there are certain conditions for it (god domain) which might make it impossible to use.

I think there is a sort of ownership of chests in place in the game, so it would only be a matter of checking how active character is.

 

[Platyna 521]

I have the same problem, as an ASD person I am also OCD, and I have to e.g. keep locked and planted FSB on my perimeter pen and a giant heap of other rubbish there, it is annoying and I try to avoid these locations. I think a mayor should be able to bash or even lock pick everything on their deed or deed perimeter, it is their land afterwards, they should be free to set the law there. 

Edited July 24, 2020 by Platyna

[TheTrickster 2,285]

Nope.  There are sufficient means to deal with this without opening up this can of worms.  No matter how many people suggest this purely for their own ability to clean up, it cannot be done without being open to exploitation, at the cost of those who will be absent for a time and come back to find their stuff looted.

[Idlamn 297]

On 7/24/2020 at 4:20 PM, TheTrickster said:

Nope.  There are sufficient means to deal with this without opening up this can of worms.  No matter how many people suggest this purely for their own ability to clean up, it cannot be done without being open to exploitation, at the cost of those who will be absent for a time and come back to find their stuff looted.

Looting stuff from absent players IS possible currently. If it's outside a structure/deed it can be lootable even when locked. Having a system that allows tampering with other player containers only after a certain amount of abandoned time would be better.

Edited July 26, 2020 by Idlamn