We Need Light In Our Darkest Hour!

[Wulfgar 1,143]

I think we should bring back light and medium guards for all the cheapskates out there, let someone have their lamps refilled for 25c if they want to.

Or we could just....you know....let them be refilled for free by maintenance spirits like we get our structures/lamps/banners/signs maintained for free?

Shocking idea, I know.

[joedobo 1,188]

I think CodeClubs financial model relies on players paying for guards. Well their is very little, if none, reason to do this on PvE. I remember when custom deeds came into being, Rolf wanted to take away the auto wall/fence maintenance on deed feature if you didn't have a guard. A lot of public pressure changed his mind. This lamp move doesn't seem unusual. If CodeClub wants us to spend extra upkeep on things, well give us something worth buying.

Here are a few things that would be worth it. Notice how these are reward and bonus instead of nerfs and penalties:

1. Prevent aggro from coming any closer then 5 tiles away from a village tiles (mobs won't non-chasing path find onto the basic perimeter).

2. Yield bonus. crops tiles give more. trees give more harvested goods, animal birthing window is shorter.

3. An improvement related bonus that causes larger ql jumps per an imp.

4. A creation related bonus that causes items created to be higher ql then normal.

5. Faster movement on deed for villagers.

6. An option so our deed lamps make it always daylight while on deed.

7. A no fog vision while on deed.

Edited August 25, 2012 by joedobo

[Amber 337]

I can't speak for anyone but myself, of course, but for me it really isn't about the money. If Rolf needs to make more off the game, whether it's to fund development or just because he'd like to get paid for his efforts, I really have no problem with that. We all know that the cost of living has gone up so if Rolf had just raised the deed upkeep by X amount per tile or announced that the cost of premium was going up you wouldn't have heard a peep out of me in protest as long as the increase was a reasonable amount.

What I can't tolerate is the underhanded, backdoor way this was done. You don't slap your customers in the face, tell them that they'll now have to put in some work to facilitate the same service they were receiving before, and then charge them more for it.

Rolf could have left deed lamps exactly as they were and increased the cost of upkeep per tile. (Reasonable business practice.)

He could have left deed lamps as they were and added some new feature to deeds and increased the upkeep per tile. (What a really savy customer service type would have done.)

Instead he changed the lamps by placing the burden of another chore onto the players, left us literally running around in the dark for weeks trying to figure out how said change was suppose to work, and then finally confirmed that we'll have to pay more in addition to doing the chore in order to get the lamps to function like they did before. (Have I stepped into the Twilight Zone here?)

Rolf, it's been my experience that most customers aren't unreasonable if you are just up front with them about things. If there is some grand long term plan for the game that makes the changes to deed lamps make sense then for goodness sake TELL us about it. If there isn't & all of this was just a way to raise revenue then admit you've handled it poorly & fix it before even more players leave.

If 1.0 is going to suceed then it's way past time for you to realize that customer service is just as, if not more important than, development for that sucess.

[ago 470]

Rolf could have left deed lamps exactly as they were

There was no special refuelling of lamps on deed. ALL lamps (even those off deed) were using up fuel slowly or not at all. A deed only affected lighting of lamps at night and they do not decay on deed. Both features are still as they were.

That being said I don't like that Rolf fixed this specific bug while many other, more severe bugs are still in the game. But it happened and yet, having to refill my lamps with tar for 30 minutes every 3 weeks is not the end of the world. That's probably less time spent than harvesting olives.

[Keldun 335]

According to older players, Rolf specifically added automatic refuelling to lamps in response to a player request.

That is the reason off deed lamps were bugged in the first place.

Edited August 27, 2012 by Keldun

[Xandra 353]

Hi,

What I can't tolerate is the underhanded, backdoor way this was done. You don't slap your customers in the face, tell them that they'll now have to put in some work to facilitate the same service they were receiving before, and then charge them more for it.

That's it. If Rolf'd needs more money for the development, everybody would understand it, since Wurm is a rather cheap game to play at all.

But: it's the way such is introduced that makes it feeling wrong.

Would this have been done to new deeds that were created after the change, this still wouldn't be nice, but at least not breaking the contract that we made with him, with using our deed form under the previous conditions.

And yes, it's a contract: We bought the deed forms, regarding the information available at this time, and planted them, regarding the information available at this time, accepting the given costs and the given benefits, at this time.

There was nothing to be found that one day in the future we'd be need to perform time consuming chores to avoid stumbling around in the dark, let alone that we'd need to hire ghostly NPCs to keep the lamps filled - for the same monthly cost as the minimum deed upkeep (w/o NPC)! Instead, we'd read/ hear all over the place that we'd get an helpful "real ghost", invisible, that would keep our structures intact on deed, and fill our lamps. For the money we'd pay.

And now Budda comes and tells us:

Bug, not feature.

Just because it's been there for a long time doesn't mean it was _meant_ to be there.

With all due respect, Budda, this is a cheap excuse, IMHO. "Bug, not feature" or "feature, not bug" - yes, we all know ad nauseam. This is what always is claimed in such situations. But this doesn't make it better.

The Wurm dev team isn't this inapt, I'm sure! Having this "bug" running for years, unharmed, not even giving notice about: "Sorry, this wasn't meant this way, expect to get it changed once we have spare time!"? Oh, really?

Regarding the great work the dev team did since I'm in this game (in many areas, not all) I cannot but scratch my head. Why did you fix this "bug" now when there's plenty of much more hurting ones still alive and kicking? Ships disappearing in cave canal entrances, mounts and carts falling through mine walls, for instance? Bugs that keep our beloved GM's busy day in day out?

With all due respect, and excusing in advance, Budda, I don't believe you here. Especially if we have, just right now, an example how it could have been done otherwise:

Backpack fountains! Nobody would doubt that it's a real bug, if not an exploit. What did you do:

1. Let it run for years, unharmed and uncommented (OK, weakens my argumentation above ...)
   
2. Stop the creating for new ones.
   
3. Let them holders of the old ones keep them. Enabling a few "bug abusers"/ "exploiters"/ "players with extended wisdom" (choose one, couldn't decide) to make good money of them, enough for quite some months of free game time.
   

But what did you do with the "light bug", widely recognized a feature making sense, paid for?

1. Let it run for years, unharmed and uncommented, as you say.
   
2. Stop the creating for new ones.
   
3. Take them away of the holders of the old ones w/o any reimbursement.
   They payed their money to Rolf to get this!
   And, even more, add another regular time consuming chore really not improving the gaming experience, and as the icing on the cake add another cost factor equivalent to the minimum cost of a deed, actually doubling deed costs for a lot of the players.
   

You see the difference?

• Those that didn't make loads of "backpack fountains" because it clearly was an exploit are the stupid, because they sell for a lot of money now once you closed this bug and didn't remove them. Those that didn't care will not pay any more EUR for months to come, since they'll earn a lot of Silver selling 'em. Seems some ppl have lots and lots ...
  
• Those that trusted what was announced as benefits for buying a deed in the available channels got robbed of a long time feature, have to spend a serious amount of precious game time for it now, and additionally quite a lot of them (those w/o ghostly NPCs) have their deed costs doubled.
  

This doesn't feel right and doesn't add to the trust in Code Club AB. This looks like applying different standards. And this opens the doors for conspiracy theories, again. Do we really need such, really?

I'm not sure if this is fun.

[Rolf 3,563]

Allright, since I hear very few voices saying it's a change that should stay I've removed oil requirements for lamps on deed. Lamps up to 50 tiles outside a deed will use the closest deeds oil reserve if there are guards on deed to fill them.

Lamps further away will have to be manually filled.

I have no intentions of being a savvy salesman. At least not right now. I implement what I think is fair and any costs related to that ensues.

I just don't think the costs for owning a deed and getting the lamps off deed (or on deed for that matter) lit without paying for it is ridiculously low. You should either pay for guards or your fellow players who you block from using that land.

I also still have problems fathoming the concept of everlit street lamps. Especially if the servers are going to be around for another twenty years.

Apparently you disagree on a large scale and I'll adjust. For now you'll have to fill lamps off deed or hire a guard.

[Wulfgar 1,143]

I also still have problems fathoming the concept of everlit street lamps. Especially if the servers are going to be around for another twenty years.

I hope the servers are going to be around for 20 years+.

I think maybe because of all the whining and such you got some things confused. Most people didn't object that lamps now required filling, they either objected

that you needed guards to do it when all other deed functions are being performed without guards, and/or that tar could not be included in the auto-filling function.

Anyway, thanks I guess.

[Rolf 3,563]

I saw Pale Rider yesterday. 20 puny gold miners are being run over by the local bullies who want them to leave. Along comes Clint Eastwood and stands up against the bullies.

Inspired by him they have a meeting where they decide to stay and fight the 7 revolvermen hired by the bullies instead of accepting lots of money to leave. Most people seem really scared but the vocal ones convince them it's the right thing to do.

Now, luckily for them Clint sticks around and saves the day or they'd all be dead the next day.

But it was a really really stupid decision.

Hopefully it doesn't apply to this discussion, but I assume you consider what's best for the game in the long run instead of how I (representing the bully) present things.

[Ruger 610]

So my oil tub and all that oil is now useless for my deed? =/

*sigh* I had no problem with the update either.....

Edited August 27, 2012 by Ruger

[Wulfgar 1,143]

So my oil tub and all that oil is now useless for my deed? =/

No, you can now light lamps up to 50 tiles away from your deed with it, how is that a bad thing?

Edited August 27, 2012 by Wulfgar

[Rolf 3,563]

Sorry Ruger you're one of the silent guys I wanted to target with the Pale Rider post.

You let the fired up guys take control. If you dislike what the others say you must argue with them because I don't have time to. In case you and the ones who feel like you just sit by the fireside and nod the sheriffs will come.

I will react on long term negative feedback.

[Rolf 3,563]

Again, these last changes are probably good and there are probably not so many that thought the changes were good given that not many argued.

[Becket 843]

I saw Pale Rider yesterday. 20 puny gold miners are being run over by the local bullies who want them to leave. Along comes Clint Eastwood and stands up against the bullies.

Inspired by him they have a meeting where they decide to stay and fight the 7 revolvermen hired by the bullies instead of accepting lots of money to leave. Most people seem really scared but the vocal ones convince them it's the right thing to do.

Now, luckily for them Clint sticks around and saves the day or they'd all be dead the next day.

But it was a really really stupid decision.

Hopefully it doesn't apply to this discussion, but I assume you consider what's best for the game in the long run instead of how I (representing the bully) present things.

Hmmm...I see you more as The Outlaw Josey Wales type

[Alyeska 2,621]

A good idea might be to present ideas first and check the responses, especially before adding nerfs or "fixes" that require extra work and money for things that we are all used to not requiring effort or money. This way everyone can give their opinion and nobody will feel like they put in work that is now useless.

[Ayes 3,715]

Rolf,

The following statement that you made is confusing to me:

"Allright, since I hear very few voices saying it's a change that should stay I've removed oil requirements for lamps on deed. Lamps up to 50 tiles outside a deed will use the closest deeds oil reserve if there are guards on deed to fill them."

Does this mean that we can fill our deed street lamps only one time with tar and they will not run out of fuel ever again and that Spirit Templars will not be required for them to function in this manner? Also that they will turn on and off in the night hours and not decay when placed on deed tiles? If your statement can be interpreted in this way it would mean that you are basically returning deed street lamps to their previous state before you introduced this oil filling requirement to keep them burning. Is this the case? I honestly do not know if you are returning them to their old way of staying lit on deed with only one filling of tar required by what you have stated in your post.

Time will tell I suppose.....

=Ayes=

[Cerber 103]

Again, these last changes are probably good and there are probably not so many that thought the changes were good given that not many argued.

actually there has been so many threads about this change, I got tired of arguing the same thing

i for one didn't have any problem about this change, i guess all the "effort" put into adapting to it is just wasted again

what will you do about heritage sites though? i don't really feel like lighting hundreds of lamps every 3 weeks... or at least add a Fill keybind so we can fill them while running

[Amber 337]

Rolf, thanks for the reply & thanks for reconsidering this change. Like Ayes I'm a bit confused about how lamps will work on deed now but I really do appreciate your attention to the issue.

Check the poll results. The majority of players didn't like this change from the start so to be honest about it I think the minority, who did support it, put up a pretty good fight. (Did I really just say something supportive of that crowd? Geez! )

[Cartrip 132]

I know there is a huge deed on Deliverance that would have expanded their perimiter even further if there were not a small deed placed there to prevent it.

This makes me feel good, but I wish I knew more. Like, was this huge deed planning to use the space for some monumental cool project, or were they just being uncouth by reserving a lot more space than they actually use?

[Cartrip 132]

On the main subject of the thread I will chime in and say that I am never ever buying a spirit templar on a non-PvP server. Also, I haven't set sickle to olive tree in.... I don't even remember. I don't harvest olives, I don't make olive oil, never seen the point, and I won't change that now just to get something back that was taken away from me. This deed lighting change caused 80% of my mine to go dark. That made me sad and angry. Job well done. But on the other hand, 'walk around with a blob of tar once a week' isn't much work especially if you map out your deed and make a note of all lamp spots.

[rixk 830]

I don't know why the panic in this thread. Noone FORCED you to buy templar. It wasn't hard to make a round on your deed every couple of weeks with tar. That didn't even take long. So it worked perfectly well, when you didn't want to pay but wanted to have your deed lit, you had to move your behind a bit, when you wanted convenience, you paid. Thats how things work in life.

Anyway Rolf, don't make it a habit, your life will be a lot harder in the future, when people know, that you can be manipulated with.

[Vroomfondel 1,128]

Thank you Rolf for listening to us. There were many that said you would never revert the change, but I felt certain that if players continued to be upset you would reconsider. I know it's not very realistic to never fill a lamp, but I never considered it magic. I always thought it was the same spirits that kept up the walls, gathering oil along with the wood and stone for repairs. As you state the need for a spirit templar now, that should make it realistic enough.

And please, take this incident as a caution when fixing old bugs. Sometimes a bug may not be big enough to worry about, or should be brought up with the playerbase before making changes. This is especially true if you try to add mundane tasks to our routines. I know, you'd get 500 suggestions, but you would find a middle ground to work with.

Now it's time to go play, and rehire that spirit templar.

Edited August 27, 2012 by Vroomfondel

[Sarcaticous 338]

You just now saw Pale RIder? Good lord man, have you been in a cave?

[darthryan 588]

Thank you Rolf!

[Ayes 3,715]

Anyway Rolf, don't make it a habit, your life will be a lot harder in the future, when people know, that you can be manipulated with.

There was no "manipulating with" Rolf done on this oil deed street lamp issue. It was purely numbers of players making known their displeasure with this change to deed lamp functioning and with a good few of the posts explaining the negative effects on the playerbase with this unneeded change. It would seem that Rolf has exhibited the good sense to take into consideration these objections and made various adjustments to his original concept recently as time has passed. This exhibts an ability to objectively view the concept and make changes that will be benificial to the playerbase, the attractiveness of gameplay and the retention of players, as well as offering another positive aspect to make the game attractive to new players. Reconsidering changes to the game based on reasonable player feedback will in the end benifit Rolf's bottom line, so it is a good but rare ability for a game developer to cultivate; therefore, I would suggest that your comment above is ill advised at best.

=Ayes=