Move a token, lose a trader... BEWARE! [SEE UPDATE]

[Toeol 185]

Actually the wiki states that you get a partial refund, if you disband while the trader is still a citizen. Look at the image for the trader contract, on the trader page. That part of the contract is even in bold.

 

I'm not arguing that point, and Rolf himself has stated that potentially thats been misreported and misrepresented, However

 

It also states:

 

"If you disband your deed for any reason the trader will vanish unless you first manage citizens and remove the trader as a citizen."

 

its even bullet pointed at the bottom:

 

 

• <Enki> Public Service Announcement - Citizen traders DO leave when you disband your deed. To keep the trader, remove it from your citizen list before deed disbandment.

  <Enki> You do not get a new contract when a trader leaves. Non-citizen traders do not benefit your deed upkeep. You cannot place a new trader on your deed with an old trader nearby.

  <Enki> Traders planted by a deed citizen automatically makes the trader a default citizen. Resizing a deed does not remove a trader from a deed.

  <Enki> Keep this in mind before you decide to remove a trader from your deed's citizen list.

  (29 May 2012)

Edited March 26, 2014 by Toeol

[Lithien 268]

I have no issues with that whatsoever - I read the wiki, forums, and googled before I invested in a trader, so I didn't make this mistake when we resized. However when the contract in game says you get a partial refund when you disband - that is what you should get. It could be 1 copper for all I care, as it never says anything about how much you are getting, but it does say that you are getting something. Or there is the much simpler solution: Just remove that part of the text from the contract.

[Caroligan 116]

Just because it's been that way means it can't possibly have been wrong? Everyone in this thread now knows that when you PLACE a trader you receive that warning somewhere in the text at the time of placement. I commend and applaud every person out there that remembers this 6 months or more from the time of placement and has the here withal to remember to remove the traders as citizens prior to disbanding. Seriously, cudos to them.  

 

To try and say that EVERYONE should be able to remember this at the drop of a dime is simply unrealistic and ludicrous.

 

But if it makes you feel better in some way, gives you a feeling of superiority in some manner or satisfies some internal need... go on with your bad self.

[Amadee 1,543]

I can see the logic in wanting to be fair across the board, the last thing you want is to have one player getting even more upset because of some sort of "favoritism" shown to one player, when they perceive they were in the same situation.  However, if your "warning message" was found to be lacking in providing an adequate warning to players, by presenting a message that could be either misconstrued or missed altogether, it seems to me the appropriate step would be to offer players who ran into this issue, from today back to the beginning of the issue, a silver refund for their loss. I'm assuming that you keep a historical record of all tickets submitted, so it should be quite easy for a GM, to review past tickets on this, based solely on the player who submitted them, and make an announcement in the game news section that if someone has reported this issue, in the past, to please submit a new ticket and they will be compensated, provided they submit the ticket from the same account.  Maybe include a note about people trying to scam the system being punished harshly.  (Perhaps a great time to implement a "whipping post" system, where they can be chained to one, in the middle of the starter town public square to be repeatedly whipped to within an inch of their life for public amusement.)

This seems like a fair approach which would avoid all the drama about someone not being "treated fairly" and also resolve this situation in a far more effective fashion, than giving someone a title that effectively cost them over 100 Euros.  Since you updated your warning messages, not providing any sort of a refund going forward seems like a fair and reasonable approach.

Obviously, this is just my 2 cp.

 

This.  Right is right and professionalism is professionalism.

[Torgrim 403]

I don't know where any of you who have had Traders be deleted have been all these years when it has been made plain knowledge of the results of disbanding ones deed with a Trader upon it. As this status has changed over the years the procedure has been updated. If an individual like the OP has not made the effort to educate themself on how to proceed to their best advantage, I see that as no ones fault but their own.

 

Rolf has taken the right approach here and in no way should any refunds be given to those who have been so careless as to not take the time to find out the options available for disbanding a deed with Traders upon them. I mean really, try to take responsibility for your own actions rather than blaming them on others. This red message upon disbanding a deed with a Trader upon it should now at least take away this opportunity for players to avoid their own responsibility and blame their mistake upon the game developers. In that respect it is a good idea.

 

=Ayes=

 

So, we should just suck it up and unquestionably love Rolf no matter what? Ouch, I forgot to check which deed my trader was citizen of and now it's gone, 100 euros, I wonder if some nice GM can help me correct my mistake.. no.. ok, oh well.. no problem I still love Rolf, he is my god, please have my money

 

 

Seriously, I like this game and I sucked it up, I didn't like it but neither did I complain alot. It would have been nice with some more customer friendly approach in these issues. I think it is good that someone complains so we can get some improvements. 

[Keldun 335]

One thing is, even when you remove the traders from deed, you are going to loose the offdeed ones, because they won't get back into deed. They can only go into a different new deed placed over them.

 

So especially in the disbanding situation you should get the 20s reimbursement. If it's upkeep the traders could stay where they are.

[Wurmhole 3,650]

I just placed one a couple weeks ago and do not remember a warning. A system like that is the equivalent to posting speed limits in a history book and expecting everyone to drive the correct speed from their memory of history, using no posted speed limit signs. Crappy analogy, but you get the point. It is like the "legal enclosure" rule. The game has plenty of warnings, like "your perimeter will overlap!" or "you cant expand the deed cause there are monsters under your bed", etc. Please add a trader warning on disbanding.

[Object 281]

just so you guys don't lose any more traders kick the trader from the deed then disband and the trader will stay.and become part of the next village that deeded over it.

 

This should be what happens automatically, if you disband a deed with a trader as a citizen, the trader shouldn't disappear.  I still have absolutely no idea why traders disappear, it doesn't make any sense at all and the main reason why I didn't really heed any of the warnings was because it shouldn't to me like misinformation.

 

That would be like adding a warning message on accounts "If you don't respond to an e-mail we send to the e-mail address tied to your account once a year, your account will be deleted.  The justification for that is we just assume your inactive and your account is taking up database space, so poof gone.

 

So, we should just suck it up and unquestionably love Rolf no matter what? Ouch, I forgot to check which deed my trader was citizen of and now it's gone, 100 euros, I wonder if some nice GM can help me correct my mistake.. no.. ok, oh well.. no problem I still love Rolf, he is my god, please have my money

 

 

Seriously, I like this game and I sucked it up, I didn't like it but neither did I complain alot. It would have been nice with some more customer friendly approach in these issues. I think it is good that someone complains so we can get some improvements. 

 

I sucked it up too, five traders gone... I barely said boo about it because I was so disappointed that my assumption that the info I heard was just to insane to be right was actually right.  What I did was quit the game, I'm back because Wurm filled a void in my gaming life that no other game could fill, but once Wurm has some serious competition what's going to happen to Wurm.  It honestly concerns me.

 

Also what exactly is a 'free disband'?

[pimprage 47]

50 Silver coins 89.76 USD

 

First, I love this game. Of all the MMO's I've shoveled money into over the years, I find this one the most appealing to me. That being said, certain aspects of the game can seriously (Bleep) me the (Bleep) off.
 
I just relocated my deed token in order to make it a bit larger. I couldn't just expand because of bordering deed perimeters. Went through the in-game disband procedure step-by-step and one hour later, poof, no more deed. Went upstairs to buy a new settlement form from my trader and... "where the (bleep) is my trader?
 
So I open a ticket and am told that I cannot be reimbursed because it is a "player" mistake and that [11:33:58] <Name withheld to protect the innocent> its normal the trader disband with the village if they villagers, to avoid it you should have removed it as a villager.

 

After digging around in wiki and trader fine print I find that information, but here's the point. If it's something of such magnitude as to cause a player the loss of 50s (113.00USD) at current Euro exchange rates on the Wurm Store, why not put a WARNING! in the in-game disband decision tree. "HEY! YOU'RE ABOUT TO LOSE A MAJOR IN-GAME INVESTMENT! DO YOU WISH TO CONTINUE?" even in WOW they have you type in "delete" as confirmation before deleting certain equipment or characters.

 

Yes, the current rule of law is correct. Yes, the information is out there. I understand this. But to have something this important with so little protection against a "player mistake" seems down right... smarmy, for lack of a better word. If I want to replace the trader I now have to shell out another 80 Euros ($113.00 USD) for something a GM could simply re-instate. Once again, other MMO's, WoW for example, will actually recover your character and as much equipment as they can if it were truly a "player mistake".

 

Dev's, Rolf, whoever... fix this. you know it's the right thing to do.

50 Silver coins 89.76 USD ..89.76 USD = 65.09 EUR

 

Sorry that happend!

[Sizewell 2]

 

I'm not arguing that point, and Rolf himself has stated that potentially thats been misreported and misrepresented, However

 

It also states:

 

"If you disband your deed for any reason the trader will vanish unless you first manage citizens and remove the trader as a citizen."

 

its even bullet pointed at the bottom:

 

 

• <Enki> Public Service Announcement - Citizen traders DO leave when you disband your deed. To keep the trader, remove it from your citizen list before deed disbandment.

  <Enki> You do not get a new contract when a trader leaves. Non-citizen traders do not benefit your deed upkeep. You cannot place a new trader on your deed with an old trader nearby.

  <Enki> Traders planted by a deed citizen automatically makes the trader a default citizen. Resizing a deed does not remove a trader from a deed.

  <Enki> Keep this in mind before you decide to remove a trader from your deed's citizen list.

  (29 May 2012)

Why is it that the contract cannot be returned to the owner? He paid out big bucks for it.

 

Take a scenario.... I want to move my deed a few tiles, I remove him as a citizen, I then disband and move deed. Meanwhile, a neighbour  buys a trader and places it on his deed.

I try to re-instate my trader, but now can not due to the other trader is too close. what happens to my trader? Have I lost him? I have nothing to prove I did ever own a trader.

If so, this is so wrong. I cannot control what my neighbour does.

 

Also, if I move to a totally different location, do I lose the trader?

 

For an item as expensive as this, there should never be a risk in losing it.

Edited March 27, 2014 by Sizewell

[Tek 99]

The thing I find most interesting about this entire situation is how active of a role Rolf is taking publicly on it. Surely in an attempt to regain some favor over recent events.

 

Do I think that people should be given reimbursement for this situation or others like it (Where a bug causes a loss)? Not for me to decide really. Though I will say it's further proof that a lack of proper communication and an extreme lack of care for fixing these types of problems should be high priorities for the staff.

 

While I do not have a trader loss story I will share that way back when I was still new to the game, I had myself a nice drake set and loaded up in a boat with all of my stuff to move from Cele to Indy. During the sail for reasons outside of the game I had to quickly leave the keyboard. Upon my return I see the screen on death. Looking further I realize that I had sailed onto Chaos and died during the border crossing due to being popped off the boat and drowning. My boat, my corpse, and all of my items including my drake had all been picked up and never to be seen again. Sure I was upset but I shook it off. I sent an e-mail in just to say the idea of having a pop up box you have to click to cross into chaos or to finally figure out and fix where you sometimes fall from the boat crossing servers. I got no reply and I left it at that - moved on.

 

I bring up this story simply because I find it relates in showing parts of the game that cost players when it could easily be fixed.

 

It also brings up two questions for me aimed at Rolf and the staff. If you give reimbursement for one thing how do you decide what gets it and doesn't. The second being why this e-mail/post is getting all of this attention while others are completely ignored?

 

Just my thoughts

 

Edit to add that while drowning is what killed me from being booted from the boat, yes there is the chance I would have sailed on and been killed by a player. Or I could have been safe and sound. To me that's not the point. The point here for me is the picking and choosing from the staff of what to do in the public eye and when. Sure you are trying to increase player opinion with these types of actions and it might work for some. For others like myself it just raises more flags and alarms.

Edited March 27, 2014 by Tek

[Marlon 303]

It is an accepted fact among its players that Wurm Online is a terrible game in general.

Also a fact that you are clearly under duress, gunpoint? Why are you still posting, playing, around?

Please leave and stop crying.

[Cista 428]

I just browsed quickly through the thread, and just have to repeat what another person said: not having a warning when disbanding the deed is simply robbing players through a technicality.

Veterans can please stop stating how well *known* it is that you will lose the trader.  What devs could do to make it more blatantly obvious is they should remove the warning when placing a trader as well, as well as info in the wiki. This would once for all establish that the intent is to rob players, meanwhile the veterans would still *know* that it was the case and they would be safe. /sarcasm

 

Who gives a flying **** what veterans *know* in this case. 

 

It doesn't have to be *known* that you will lose the trader. 

It only has to be an alert that comes up when you disband. Problem solved. A 3-year old could have deducted what I just said.

Edited March 27, 2014 by Cista

[Cista 428]

PS: Oh and they can also remove the warning that changing the name will cost 5 silver and remove faith bonus, as well as a number of other alerts, because veterans are already well aware of all of these issues. /facepalm

 

Seriously, a number of vets should be advised not to post on forums because they would do much better if remaining anonymous.

Edited March 27, 2014 by Cista

[Leroy 315]

Yea, we're taking it pretty hard. My son has been playing for about 7 years now and 3 of the 4 traders were his that he worked his butt off for. The kicker is that a dev alluded to the faoilct it may be a bug and the head game master indicated that it is flawed and needs more work on the deed-disband side.

You can have the best product in the world but at the end of the day it's only as good as the customer service provided. I know they can fix this with a few stokes of the keyboard and they choose not to.

First, wow a couple of days and I see wurm adds a warning, seems someone was listening after all. Second, I've only played 5 months and have fallen in love with the fearful love the community has with the lack of catering-style customer-service wurm provides, I even made a post about it "best part of wurm is it's fault". To say you played 7, seven, years, and we're caught off guard ny this and then to even elaborate about fine print on the wiki, suggesting as though the wiki was put up overnight?

Congrats you were persistent, tenacious and hounded until the issue was resolved. Redacted your public complaints, and go play in peace. Allow the rest of us to now go play with the mindset that yet another company holds our hand because we lack the conviction to read instructions before opening, fail to lol before crossing, and fail to see walls if not for bright paint.

Incase your order is not enough, and my warning is on deaf ears, and the label not precise... caution, that "hot coffee" you ordered may be too luke-warm to handle, as the picture on the warning label is attempting to convey.

[Iulianx 90]

Traders are bought just to drain money.

[Pollo 146]

Perhaps it is time to acknowledge that the trader system is a sh&^ty way to re-float currency into the economy.  The Wurm economic system would likely get a failing grade in Econ 101.  It is past time to come up with new ways for a more open and equitable economic system.

[Dairuka 888]

Traders are bought just to drain money.

 

Mine is public. My alliance-mate drained it once, and it's never regenerated the money from the initial drain since then.

 

Not all traders were meant to be get rich quick schemes. Some of them are used for their contract selling services.

 

First, wow a couple of days and I see wurm adds a warning, seems someone was listening after all. Second, I've only played 5 months and have fallen in love with the fearful love the community has with the lack of catering-style customer-service wurm provides, I even made a post about it "best part of wurm is it's fault". To say you played 7, seven, years, and we're caught off guard ny this and then to even elaborate about fine print on the wiki, suggesting as though the wiki was put up overnight?

Congrats you were persistent, tenacious and hounded until the issue was resolved. Redacted your public complaints, and go play in peace. Allow the rest of us to now go play with the mindset that yet another company holds our hand because we lack the conviction to read instructions before opening, fail to lol before crossing, and fail to see walls if not for bright paint.

Incase your order is not enough, and my warning is on deaf ears, and the label not precise... caution, that "hot coffee" you ordered may be too luke-warm to handle, as the picture on the warning label is attempting to convey.

 

If they'll break down reinforced walls for PvP'ers who can't just accept a bug and move on, I see no reason why we should.

Edited March 27, 2014 by Dairuka

[Caroligan 116]

Update. Go here and post appropriately for Rolf to gather statistics on accidental trader losses while disbanding a deed to move the token. http://forum.wurmonline.com/index.php?/topic/98536-trader-deed-disband-statistics/

Edited March 27, 2014 by Caroligan

[Sizewell 2]

 

 

I'm not arguing that point, and Rolf himself has stated that potentially thats been misreported and misrepresented, However

 

It also states:

 

"If you disband your deed for any reason the trader will vanish unless you first manage citizens and remove the trader as a citizen."

 

its even bullet pointed at the bottom:

 

 

• <Enki> Public Service Announcement - Citizen traders DO leave when you disband your deed. To keep the trader, remove it from your citizen list before deed disbandment.

  <Enki> You do not get a new contract when a trader leaves. Non-citizen traders do not benefit your deed upkeep. You cannot place a new trader on your deed with an old trader nearby.

  <Enki> Traders planted by a deed citizen automatically makes the trader a default citizen. Resizing a deed does not remove a trader from a deed.

  <Enki> Keep this in mind before you decide to remove a trader from your deed's citizen list.

  (29 May 2012)

Why is it that the contract cannot be returned to the owner? He paid out big bucks for it.

 

Take a scenario.... I want to move my deed a few tiles, I remove him as a citizen, I then disband and move deed. Meanwhile, a neighbour  buys a trader and places it on his deed.

I try to re-instate my trader, but now can not due to the other trader is too close. what happens to my trader? Have I lost him? I have nothing to prove I did ever own a trader.

If so, this is so wrong. I cannot control what my neighbour does.

 

Also, if I move to a totally different location, do I lose the trader?

 

For an item as expensive as this, there should never be a risk in losing it.

 

 

Bump.

 

Can anyone answer these questions? Would be interested to know the answers.

[Toeol 185]

If you kick the trader from your deed it still exists, so no-one else can place one. The trader still works, just it no longer collects tax if you have that setting.

If you are redeeding over him quick enough with the same deed name it may rejoin your deed, this has happened to me before.

If you move altogether, the trader will stay where you left it, once placed it currently cannot be moved through any means.

Hope this helps

[Sizewell 2]

Thanks for the info Toeol.

[Ayes 3,715]

This should be what happens automatically, if you disband a deed with a trader as a citizen, the trader shouldn't disappear.  I still have absolutely no idea why traders disappear, it doesn't make any sense at all

 

This is an interesting question. Why should the Trader vanish if it is a citizen of a deed when the deed is disbanded. What is the need for this. Perhaps it might be that the god of Wurm or his advisors do not think it is a good idea for others to then be able to house or deed over these then homeless Traders, in effect making them cost nothing to those who acquire them in this manner.

 

Then again, this same thing can be done if the Trader is removed as a citizen of the deed before disbanding but you have to be aware of this procedure in order to take advantage of it. Then also consider that if a deed with a Trader who is a citizen upon it disbands due to running out of upkeep, the Trader then vanishes eliminating the opportunity for others waiting for this disband to deed over the remaining Trader, in effect getting it at no cost and thus reducing the 50 silver income the game otherwise would have received.

 

More to the story than meets the eye here. The winding road continues onward and around the bend await new discoveries for those that have not traveled that byway.

 

Happy Trails

=Ayes=

[Caroligan 116]

This is an interesting question. Why should the Trader vanish if it is a citizen of a deed when the deed is disbanded. What is the need for this. Perhaps it might be that the god of Wurm or his advisors do not think it is a good idea for others to then be able to house or deed over these then homeless Traders, in effect making them cost nothing to those who acquire them in this manner.

 

Then again, this same thing can be done if the Trader is removed as a citizen of the deed before disbanding but you have to be aware of this procedure in order to take advantage of it. Then also consider that if a deed with a Trader who is a citizen upon it disbands due to running out of upkeep, the Trader then vanishes eliminating the opportunity for others waiting for this disband to deed over the remaining Trader, in effect getting it at no cost and thus reducing the 50 silver income the game otherwise would have received.

 

More to the story than meets the eye here. The winding road continues onward and around the bend await new discoveries for those that have not traveled that byway.

 

Happy Trails

=Ayes=

 

The music plays, the dance continues

 

Those are good points to ponder.  It seems to me that the best way to solve the trader issues is to tie them to a permanent contract, as some have suggested. If they were to make the trader contract "bound" to the original purchaser and make it non-transferable in any way, then it would simply follow the player throughout his/her travels through the wurmiverse. For instance, what if the player is simply a villager of a deed and decided to put a trader off in the hills somewhere and the Mayor decides to stop paying for upkeep and the deed disbands through lack of upkeep? The villager loses a trader because the Mayor was cheap?

 

If the trader is bound to the player then:

 - the player deed disbands, the trader simply reverts to a contract in his/her inventory allowing it to be placed again when the player decided to do so.

 - the player is removed from the deed by the mayor for whatever reason, then the trader is removed as well and reverts to contract form in the players inventory.

 - the mean ole enemy comes in, drains the token while you're off in the land of Nod, the trader "poofs" and reverts to contract form in the players inventory.

 - the player decides to stop playing Wurm and as soon as the building it is in crumbles to dust, it reverts to a contract in the players inventory.

 

The only problem I foresee would be finding another site to place the trader, but then that would be absolutely nothing more than an issue for the player to resolve on their own.

 

This would end any and all trader drama, mistakes or accusations and the game dev's/admin can move on to continue improving the game in more constructive areas. Like bridges

 

As far as current reimbursements as compensation for lost traders to an ineffective deed disband system, by giving the player permanent contracts instead of silver would be the way to go.

 

Side note here, with a  permanent contract you could effectively limit the number of traders one character could own, like a Settlement form. 

[Ayes 3,715]

The music plays, the dance continues

Those are good points to ponder.  It seems to me that the best way to solve the trader issues is to tie them to a permanent contract, as some have suggested. If they were to make the trader contract "bound" to the original purchaser and make it non-transferable in any way, then it would simply follow the player throughout his/her travels through the wurmiverse.

As far as current reimbursements as compensation for lost traders to an ineffective deed disband system, by giving the player permanent contracts instead of silver would be the way to go.

Side note here, with a  permanent contract you could effectively limit the number of traders one character could own, like a Settlement form. 

 

To setup the Trader contract in this manner similar to a Merchant contract would seem like a reasonable way to handle this system. Also I like the idea of further allowing only 1 Trader contract per player character and that they must be premium as well to purchase and place it similar to deeds. Could even go as far as if the players premium expires that the Trader is automatically returned to their inventory. This would help cut down on the amount of deeds setup exclusively for Trader draining and at least require those type of deeds to have an active premium account active. In this manner no one ever looses their 50 silver Trader contract but it may only become inactive and returned to them under certain conditions.

 

=Ayes=