Previous Thread
Previous
Expand All
Collapse All
Ignore Author
ReplyPeople who have abandon shops should lose there stuff. I once got put in jail during an invasion for hitting an npc. This was during a crazy invasion where mobs where in town and they like burned down part of the landing. Well before i could get out of jail and get my stuff. My house was struck by lighting there was a small fire i lost my TV, computer, Microwave. You get the picture. But months later when i had made enough to log back on and play again. I asked if i could get my stuff from jail back. I was told no. Well pretty much everything i owned of any value was on me. They told me it was gone i couldn't have it back.( thought that was pretty heartless after id lost thousands in stuff in my home.) So yeah i don't really feel like they should get it back if i couldn't.
My main point is that this is a big deal, and requires more, better, and lengthier notice. And no, "they've been talking about this for a long time" isn't notice. They've been talking about breakage for decades, and no one considers that notice, (except maybe for Krakii).
Also, the "it costs money to store stuff" is not a very strong argument. It's all being stored now. No one is asking you to mortgage the company to buy more disk space. You need to think of it from a customer service perspective instead of thinking about the very small cost of storage. Sure, it costs a little bit to store things, but a pissed off customer who was paying you 40 bucks a month for very little, (obviously they weren't playing much), costs you a whole lot more.
Send out some emails, plaster it all over the website, blast it out on Twitter and Facebook every week for 2 months, then implement it. You know a lot of people are going to be coming to you and saying, "what happened to my shop?!?" And all of those contacts with people who lost shops will take time, or cost money, as you might say. Being able to say, "oh yeah, here's your stuff, we kept it for 12 months" is a hell of a lot easier conversation than, "nope, sorry, it's all gone. We told you that's how player shops work 12 years ago so you should have known. Sucks to be you!" The former cements a long term customer, the latter costs you a monthly subscription fee.
Kerl
Also, the "it costs money to store stuff" is not a very strong argument. It's all being stored now. No one is asking you to mortgage the company to buy more disk space. You need to think of it from a customer service perspective instead of thinking about the very small cost of storage. Sure, it costs a little bit to store things, but a pissed off customer who was paying you 40 bucks a month for very little, (obviously they weren't playing much), costs you a whole lot more.
Send out some emails, plaster it all over the website, blast it out on Twitter and Facebook every week for 2 months, then implement it. You know a lot of people are going to be coming to you and saying, "what happened to my shop?!?" And all of those contacts with people who lost shops will take time, or cost money, as you might say. Being able to say, "oh yeah, here's your stuff, we kept it for 12 months" is a hell of a lot easier conversation than, "nope, sorry, it's all gone. We told you that's how player shops work 12 years ago so you should have known. Sucks to be you!" The former cements a long term customer, the latter costs you a monthly subscription fee.
Kerl
<Also, the "it costs money to store stuff" is not a very strong argument. It's all being stored now. No one is asking you to mortgage the company to buy more disk space.>
To be fair, that wasn't a NIR excuse for why they were doing anything, they were just pointing out that there are costs when someone else claimed otherwise.
Starchitin
A severed gnomish hand crawls in on its fingertips and makes a rude gesture before quickly decaying and rotting into dust. A gust of wind quickly scatters the dust.
To be fair, that wasn't a NIR excuse for why they were doing anything, they were just pointing out that there are costs when someone else claimed otherwise.
Starchitin
A severed gnomish hand crawls in on its fingertips and makes a rude gesture before quickly decaying and rotting into dust. A gust of wind quickly scatters the dust.
<<Also, the "it costs money to store stuff" is not a very strong argument. It's all being stored now. No one is asking you to mortgage the company to buy more disk space. You need to think of it from a customer service perspective instead of thinking about the very small cost of storage. Sure, it costs a little bit to store things, but a pissed off customer who was paying you 40 bucks a month for very little, (obviously they weren't playing much), costs you a whole lot more.>>
Please re-read what I wrote.
SGM Sleken
Please re-read what I wrote.
SGM Sleken
I still think finding a way to write the items off to disk instead of keeping them in memory would be a decent approach. Maybe there's a policy against it and it's not ideal but it gets the old items out of memory and shouldn't require any new code - just a new procedure. After however many weeks go by, the items can be scrapped or auctioned or whatever.
Honestly, how hard could it be to create a new account--OH, look at that... you're the company that controls the accounts!--and give the username/password to EVERY one of the GMs who can thereby log the character in to hand off the CharacterX box to the GM account answering the referral?
Set that account to the uttermost degree of logging ("incipient HMC with one-fewer-Warning-than-banishment" level), so that every transaction on it is recorded to a fare-thee-well. There should only ever be two (2) things going on anyhow: GM handing a CharacterX box from the shop TO that character for storage in a locker, and that character handing a CharacterX box over to a GM again later (maybe).
Generic NPCs. Players have figured out how to make locker-mule-bots, why can't the company?
Set that account to the uttermost degree of logging ("incipient HMC with one-fewer-Warning-than-banishment" level), so that every transaction on it is recorded to a fare-thee-well. There should only ever be two (2) things going on anyhow: GM handing a CharacterX box from the shop TO that character for storage in a locker, and that character handing a CharacterX box over to a GM again later (maybe).
Generic NPCs. Players have figured out how to make locker-mule-bots, why can't the company?
Honestly, there's time to come up with a plan to respond to items that get boxed up, since there's at least 90 days (and I think it's closer to 110 or something since evictions aren't immediate). I'm fine waiting to see things like how many evicted boxes there are etc.
My biggest request for something immediate is an email about it. I think asking for that (and expecting it) is fair since mass communications go out with some regularity.
>>Generic NPCs. Players have figured out how to make locker-mule-bots, why can't the company?
I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. If you know someone well enough to know they'll be interested in this - email them. If you don't know them well enough to email them, there's no point in pretending to speak about their wishes.
There is literally nothing to be done to make everyone happy. And kicking the can down the road (storing things and creating processes in the hopes that someone might return) so the rest of us greedy schmoes can say "Yay, I got a shop" seems. . . well, you get the idea.
Doug
I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. If you know someone well enough to know they'll be interested in this - email them. If you don't know them well enough to email them, there's no point in pretending to speak about their wishes.
There is literally nothing to be done to make everyone happy. And kicking the can down the road (storing things and creating processes in the hopes that someone might return) so the rest of us greedy schmoes can say "Yay, I got a shop" seems. . . well, you get the idea.
Doug
Since the system was broken for ~10 years and many people left for years at a time and returned to still have their shop, I think it might save a lot of headaches in the future. As people now return to a repossessed shop and missing stuff, you might make a person really happy to give them their stuff back and they might stick around more as the staff was so awesome to do something like this. If the system weren't broken for so long, I'd see things a little more black and white in terms of policy.
If anything, a mass email might boost subs a little as many shops are on dormant accounts.
I do agree that a mass email would be a great idea. Not necessarily to help people who intentionally misused a shop (notice I didn't say abused,) but to cut down on the large number of hours spent answering assists, spread out over how many years, when people return to find their items are gone. Sure, you'll get assists requests anyway, but I say if it cuts down on even 5 hours combined of time, it's worth it.
Not to mention, just the "right thing to do."
Me, I'm fine with the abandonment policy as-is: when the shop is repossessed, the items go into a box. If you don't claim the box, they're gone.
That policy, exactly as described, was in the addition to "shop policy" that Ozias posted in early 2006, looks like about three years after shops were released.
The fact that such repo's were NOT being done, due to a glitch in the system that caused the whole thing to turn into a GM-killer, is a 'feature'.
The shop owners were aware of the requirement, though.
.
That said, I also feel for bad circumstances. It would TOTALLY SUCK if--picking a name from thin air--Ardwen's player got into a serious accident, couldn't pay his Simu bill (or operate a computer to play), got disconnected, and his entire shop just... poofed after a while.
Box 'em up. Put them into a "hunting area" that only gets loaded when visited, don't let people (even GMs) visit unless they need to get a box out.
Hell, set up the automation to DUPLICATE the entire shop in said 'hunting area', and put a prop "repossessed box" in the permits office. Opening the box calls the script, at that time, to pull the inventory and destroy the saved shop. If the box lays dormant long enough to poof, the GM answering the referral from the returning character can gen a new box. Everything is behind the scenes.
That policy, exactly as described, was in the addition to "shop policy" that Ozias posted in early 2006, looks like about three years after shops were released.
The fact that such repo's were NOT being done, due to a glitch in the system that caused the whole thing to turn into a GM-killer, is a 'feature'.
The shop owners were aware of the requirement, though.
.
That said, I also feel for bad circumstances. It would TOTALLY SUCK if--picking a name from thin air--Ardwen's player got into a serious accident, couldn't pay his Simu bill (or operate a computer to play), got disconnected, and his entire shop just... poofed after a while.
Box 'em up. Put them into a "hunting area" that only gets loaded when visited, don't let people (even GMs) visit unless they need to get a box out.
Hell, set up the automation to DUPLICATE the entire shop in said 'hunting area', and put a prop "repossessed box" in the permits office. Opening the box calls the script, at that time, to pull the inventory and destroy the saved shop. If the box lays dormant long enough to poof, the GM answering the referral from the returning character can gen a new box. Everything is behind the scenes.
Just to chime in here on an email campaign about this. These campaigns only work if players are on an active account and/or haven't opted out of emails. We cannot send an email to someone who has opted out of promotional emails. There are two places you could have opted out. In your My Account settings and in the email itself. We cannot even give you a reminder email about any of this. This is due to the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003. Because the email will mean the user will need to subscribe, it's an ad.
I've already taken into account who we can reach during this. Most accounts are long gone, bouncing emails, or opted out. I would rather not leave resources hanging on this massive project any longer.
Wyrom, PM
I've already taken into account who we can reach during this. Most accounts are long gone, bouncing emails, or opted out. I would rather not leave resources hanging on this massive project any longer.
Wyrom, PM
Honestly, some 80% of my concern was just making sure that a message went out. If it was targeted to inactives with shops etc. then I wouldn't have known. People have known the policy, so I just wanted to make sure that people were being told that the policy is back on. Other tweaks as far as the items around said policy are much less in my mind, and much less reasonable for players to expect.
I read it carefully the first time. A couple of times. I am not one to post haphazardly, at least not most of the time. I own two businesses, and that means I have to think about how to get and retain customers on the daily. I'm also a long term player of this game, who isn't going to lose anything in this, but cares about people who may not be reading this board. That's my perspective, not one of a lack of reading comprehension.
Kerl
Kerl
I realize there are concerns. We went over this pretty thoroughly as we approached the end. An email campaign like this to raise awareness isn't actually one that does a lot of good. Since the majority of users who will see these emails aren't affected, it brings out a situation where we raise concerns to people not involved. It creates hysteria in a way. We see this a lot in our community.
Even with the limitations of 1 shop per account that players haven brought up. If it isn't known, it will be now... we have thousands of active accounts. The average user (entire account) is on 70 minutes at a time (per day), which includes your AFK outliers. To maintain a sense of 300 to 500 users on at a time, we have to have a lot more accounts than that. There are only 7 users on at the time of this post who are extreme outliers, but we have 331 people in game. Characters log in and out every minute. The limitation would not even be seen because most would still miss out.
The policy for shops has not changed. The pausing of rent and repossessions was not one that was ever added to the SHOP POLICY in game. Everyone should always make themselves aware of our policies, as you agree to it when you play and partake in activities directly related to the policy in question.
We have gone through all the possibilities here. We cannot even reach the majority of shop holders anymore. Don't hyper focus on an issue that can't be solved. Let's move on and enjoy the system again. There are going to be new shop owners in the near future!
Wyrom, PM
Even with the limitations of 1 shop per account that players haven brought up. If it isn't known, it will be now... we have thousands of active accounts. The average user (entire account) is on 70 minutes at a time (per day), which includes your AFK outliers. To maintain a sense of 300 to 500 users on at a time, we have to have a lot more accounts than that. There are only 7 users on at the time of this post who are extreme outliers, but we have 331 people in game. Characters log in and out every minute. The limitation would not even be seen because most would still miss out.
The policy for shops has not changed. The pausing of rent and repossessions was not one that was ever added to the SHOP POLICY in game. Everyone should always make themselves aware of our policies, as you agree to it when you play and partake in activities directly related to the policy in question.
We have gone through all the possibilities here. We cannot even reach the majority of shop holders anymore. Don't hyper focus on an issue that can't be solved. Let's move on and enjoy the system again. There are going to be new shop owners in the near future!
Wyrom, PM
I've never known moving with caution to create hysteria. Usually it's the other way around. I think I've made my point though. The rest is your call:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYsdUgEgJrY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYsdUgEgJrY
<<Generic NPCs. Players have figured out how to make locker-mule-bots, why can't the company?>>
Robert, I respect you and have enjoyed reading your posts over the years and I have also enjoyed interacting you, both as a GM and a player.
But please, please, stop talking about us like we are all idiots. Yes, we could do locker-mule-bots. I've been doing this for sixteen years now. I know exactly how this will land on one or two people to manage. They leave and/or it gets to be too big of a hassle it won't get done. Then it'll be on some SGM that has too much of a sense of responsibility to handle.
SGM Sleken
Robert, I respect you and have enjoyed reading your posts over the years and I have also enjoyed interacting you, both as a GM and a player.
But please, please, stop talking about us like we are all idiots. Yes, we could do locker-mule-bots. I've been doing this for sixteen years now. I know exactly how this will land on one or two people to manage. They leave and/or it gets to be too big of a hassle it won't get done. Then it'll be on some SGM that has too much of a sense of responsibility to handle.
SGM Sleken
No insult intended, Sleken.
And I totally get the viewpoint of coming from "one character on one account can do something with one item easily, sure; I'm talking about dozens of characters on thousands of accounts with bajillions of items."
(This is nearly always the conversation I have with people. I do NOT do most things "one at a time", and don't even talk to me about <pretty much anything Windows- or Web-based right now, clicky-clicky with a mouse>. My aim & intention & goal is to deal with things a thousand at a time, or more.)
.
But it doesn't strike me as that hard, either.
And I totally get the viewpoint of coming from "one character on one account can do something with one item easily, sure; I'm talking about dozens of characters on thousands of accounts with bajillions of items."
(This is nearly always the conversation I have with people. I do NOT do most things "one at a time", and don't even talk to me about <pretty much anything Windows- or Web-based right now, clicky-clicky with a mouse>. My aim & intention & goal is to deal with things a thousand at a time, or more.)
.
But it doesn't strike me as that hard, either.
I'm glad to see that this has finally come to fruition, honestly. As a former three room shop owner, I kinda felt like it was cheating to keep having a place where I could make coins but not have to spend coins in order to make them. However, the update could've been made via @play.net email addresses (assuming everyone involved had associated their account with an active email address so they didn't miss out). I know my spam filter didn't mention anything about this update, nor the testing period involved beforehand... since I still get event emails from Simu, then I'd assume I'd get update emails via the same venue.
In any case, it's about time that shops were actually paying for themselves, and I appreciate the effort involved.
Cheers!
In any case, it's about time that shops were actually paying for themselves, and I appreciate the effort involved.
Cheers!
So if my current settings regarding email forwarding and product promotions via email are set to yes (which they are) (things I haven't changed in quite some time), then I've still missed out on updates regarding playershops?
And by "active account", I assume that means an account that is current by subscription? I'd say $40/month counts.
And by "active account", I assume that means an account that is current by subscription? I'd say $40/month counts.
