1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Greetings Guest!!

    In order to combat SPAM on the forums, all users are required to have a minimum of 2 posts before they can submit links in any post or thread.

    Dismiss Notice

Bags of Sending - Facts, Feedback, & Poll

Discussion in 'UHall' started by Guest, Nov 30, 2007.

  1. Guest

    Guest Guest

    <u>Known Facts on Bag of Sending Change</u>:

    The following changes took place in a Server Publish (read the full details here):<blockquote><hr>

    Additional Server Publish Notes by Jeremy Dalberg - 27 Nov 2007 15:31:48 EST

    - Solen powder quest now rewards 4-5 powder.

    - Bags of sending now use 1 charge per 10 stones of weight, rounded up. (15 stones would use 2 charges, for example)

    [/ QUOTE ]

    <font color="red">Note:</font> The "Solen powder quest now rewards 4-5 powder." refers to the Powder of Translocation that you are able to get when you do the The Ambitious Red Solen Queen Quest to get a Bag of Sending, not the quest specifically for getting the Powder. You still get the normal 100 Powder from The Solen Matriarch Quest.

    And commented on by Jeremy in the Five on Friday, here.
    <blockquote><hr>

    "Why was the Bag of Sending nerfed?"
    The short answer is, to curb inflation. The longer answer involves some metaphors, so bear with me a moment.

    UO's economy was designed on the "faucet/sink" model. Imagine a faucet that pours gold into the world. Now imagine various drains - "gold sinks" - that the gold flows away into. The goal of the system is for the level of gold in the world to remain approximately even, and that's done by adjusting the rate of the flow in and the size of the drains out.

    In UO, the "faucets" are the various NPCs that give players gold - monsters you can loot, escorts or quests that give gold as a reward, etc. The drains are any NPC or system that takes gold away from players - the insurance system is a big one, as are player vendor fees. (Player-to-player trades are NOT sinks - moving the gold around within the world doesn't change the overall amount of money in it.)

    The Bags of Sending were increasing the rate of flow of gold from monster loot - that faucet was pretty much cranked as wide as it would go. This has been overwhelming the drains and increasing the amount of money in the world, which lowers the actual value of gold - this is what economists mean by "inflation." Changing the Bags of Sending to make farming for gold less profitable will slow down that flow and hopefully slow down the rate of inflation - which will raise prices in the short run but lower them substantially in the long run, as the drains pull money out of the world and the actual value of gold goes up.

    Now, MMO economics are far from an exact science, and the system will no doubt require further tweaking, but this is a step in the right direction.

    [/ QUOTE ]


    <u>Notice of Moderation</u>:
    <blockquote><hr>

    Other threads are being examined and closed with or without warning and/or notice.

    The following threads, in relation to this change, have emerged since.
    If the intent of the BOS change was....
    Bag of sending.
    Bag of Sending Changes Seems to Have Done the Job
    A day with the new bag of "sending nothing"
    What is the OFFICIAL reason for BOS change?

    Another Poll:
    Bag of Sending Poll: Good change? Bad Change?

    [/ QUOTE ]

    I am adding a plain polling for those who use polls. You may feel free to use this thread for discussions on the Bag of Sending. Please keep it civil and do not attack other people's opinions while defending and explaining your own opinions and constructive feedback.

    Thank you all and my apologies for any disturbance!

    *Kal Ort Por*
     
  2. Guest

    Guest Guest

    ...

    If the changes were meant to slow the sending of GOLD, then why not set the bag to either not send GOLD or limit the amount of GOLD?

    Even with the official answer, the changes have gone too far IMO.
     
  3. Guest

    Guest Guest

    <blockquote><hr>

    ...

    If the changes were meant to slow the sending of GOLD, then why not set the bag to either not send GOLD or limit the amount of GOLD?

    Even with the official answer, the changes have gone too far IMO.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    I agree, restrict the sending of gold, not resources. Also maybe open on ilshenar as being able to be recalled too. 1 charge per 10 stones is way too low, alot of ppl can carry 20k on them, you cant even send 20k to the bank with a full bag, kinda ridiculous :/ The change makes the bag unusable [​IMG]
     
  4. Guest

    Guest Guest

    ...

    Nah, I disagree on Ilshenar... it's fine as it is. Even without BoS, I can rake in a TON of gold sitting almost literally right next to a permanent bank location.

    I vote to keep Ilshenar unMarkable.
     
  5. Its a bad change. There have been many suggestions for gold sinks in the past that would have been 100% more effective than this. If the cost of the product (the BoS) is more than the use you get from it, than no one will use it. It just creates a an inconveneince for us but the scripters sure are laughing [​IMG]
     
  6. Guest

    Guest Guest

    <blockquote><hr>

    Its a bad change. There have been many suggestions for gold sinks in the past that would have been 100% more effective than this.

    [/ QUOTE ]
    This isn't about removing gold from the economy, it's about slowing the creation. The Bag of Sending has made it insanely easy to generate hundreds of thousands of gold per hour in the most ideal conditions.

    On a side note, this poll is going to be overwhelmingly voted No. Even I don't like the Bag of Sending change as a player, but I realize that it is a necessary change. It is like the Lower Reagent Cost issue. Lots of people know, including the developers, that it needs to be addressed, but it would be unpopular.
     
  7. Guest

    Guest Guest

    I'm happy for the nerf and hope it's here to stay.

    And the nerf was not only needed for gold farming but also for resource farmning.

    Let the scripters die. I hope the Devs won't listen to their crying.
     
  8. joblackjon

    joblackjon Guest

    The BoS change is ridiculous.

    The change effectively made sending gold, at the very least, very stupid.

    On Baja Powder costs 500gp/1.
    The bag holds 30 charges that cost 15,000 gp.
    15,000 gp weighs 300 stone which is the maximum sending weight.

    So it costs 15,000 gp to send 15,000 gp to the bank!

    Will this slow gold coming into the economy? Yes, but how much and certainly not consistantly across the board (I realize these are guesstimates):
    In Fel dungeons &amp; Ilshenar you might spend 25% of every hour on transport.
    At Swoops you might lose 15% of every hour to transport.
    At Tram Destard you might lose 5% of every hour to transport.

    This is another leap of faith but average the amount of time that will be spent reacalling to the bank instead farming gold and it is around 15%. Is a 15% reduction in gold coming into the system really going to make that much of difference versus the inconvenience?
     
  9. Guest

    Guest Guest

    ...

    Let the scripters die. I hope the Devs won't listen to their crying.

    You DO realize that the affect to scriptors via the BoS change will be negligible once they update their scripts to utilize new strategies... right?
     
  10. Setnaffa

    Setnaffa Certifiable
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    1,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    <blockquote><hr>

    ...

    If the changes were meant to slow the sending of GOLD, then why not set the bag to either not send GOLD or limit the amount of GOLD?

    Even with the official answer, the changes have gone too far IMO.

    [/ QUOTE ]Yep. Brilliant Solution! If sending gold is a problem then don't let it be used for sending gold! Plain and simple!
     
  11. Guest

    Guest Guest

    <blockquote><hr>

    ...

    Let the scripters die. I hope the Devs won't listen to their crying.

    You DO realize that the affect to scriptors via the BoS change will be negligible once they update their scripts to utilize new strategies... right?

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Sure they can changes them to use recall alot more but you can't recall everywhere and you can't recall if overloaded.

    Sadly BOS was used of far to many lazy players too. Some was so lazy that they did use scripts together with the BOS.

    When we hear players complain, that they have no room for all their mills and want 10 mill checks, then we should know the game is sick.
     
  12. I'd much prefer if they completely removed the bags from the game, but if they're not going to then this is acceptable.
     
  13. No one can argue that the BoS was widely used by scripters and even normal players for excessive farming. However, nuking the BoS completely just goes to show you how FUBAR this game has become over time. Imposing a timer limit (think of the 10th anniv. statue as an example) or a usage limit (think 5 max per 24-48 hrs) on the BoS would have gone a long way to curb the current problems, yet keep some usefulness. As it stands, the BoS is about as useful as a bedroll.

    Without any other supporting action such as the monsters gold drops reduced, vendors actually charging players and scripter/cheater bannings, the point is moot.

    I think people have to realize one thing about UO right now... it is far easier to upset the current player base and drive them to exodus VS. rallying support and gaining new subscriptions.

    In the future (as they promise more "tweaking"), I can only hope such changes would be consulted and announced to the public. Fixing UO's problems? That's great, but getting the shaft at the same time isn't.
     
  14. Guest

    Guest Guest

    ...

    You haven't heard me ask for higher level checks (personally, I think what we have now is too much).

    However, given other recent and soon to be seen changes with the KR UI (specifically for crafting, looting, etc), BOD pulls (higher level deed pulls = higher level gold rewards), loot upgrades in Tokuno, and so on, it makes an odd couterpoint to nerf the Bag of Sending so badly.

    As stated, if it's a gold issue, then focus on the gold.

    Personally, after a couple of small adjustments even as a NON-scripting player (unless you want to redefine the term to include developing more advanced KR macros... as many older posters here probably already know, I've NEVER used UOA), the change in gold gathering for me based on the BoS change will be negligible at best.

    You may see scriptors removed from specific areas, but that in no way means that they're removed from the game.

    Scriptors are the problem, the economy problems are the symptoms.

    You get rid of the symptoms by removing the problem, you do not get rid of the problem by removing the symptoms.
     
  15. Guest

    Guest Guest

    <blockquote><hr>

    On Baja Powder costs 500gp/1.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Well, I believe that with those prices, just like you say, not many will buy their PoT. Then perhaps the prices will go down so that they will get something sold. Perhaps.

    <blockquote><hr>

    The bag holds 30 charges that cost 15,000 gp.


    [/ QUOTE ]

    Hopefully this is a constructive tip for some people.

    Do the solen quest 3 times and get yourself 300 powder. While killing ants for fungees you will also get gold. Then you will have 300 powder with you which allows you to send 150K from a hunting spot.

    So with the gold from the ants + 150K + the last gold you will fill your backpack with before you head back to the bank will be about 180-190K I think. Not too bad from a couple of hours work.

    About this poll. I didn´t cast a vote cuz I haven´t made my mind up yet.

    I´m not a rich man ingame (not outgame either [​IMG]) but the gold part won´t bother me that much. I actually kind of like it. I don´t mind running a little. It´s the gathering of resources (leather) that will be a little trickier. Not saying that it´s bad and I guess only time will tell if it´s good.

    But for now I will adapt and play the game as it is right now and see what happens.

    Sure, if I HAD to vote in the poll RIGHT NOW I probably would choose "NO" but that would just be to play it safe. But I´m not afraid to give this a try...
     
  16. Guest

    Guest Guest

    <blockquote><hr>

    ...

    If the changes were meant to slow the sending of GOLD, then why not set the bag to either not send GOLD or limit the amount of GOLD?

    Even with the official answer, the changes have gone too far IMO.

    [/ QUOTE ]
    I agree with this one too [​IMG] Not that I can't use every single gold piece I loot, but I'd still like to be able to BoS my resources!

    *edits* I keep seeing the term "famring" is that when people like stay(ed) at swoop for hours on end to get gold? Dunno where the fun is in that :p I think I tried swoop a grand total of twice - it bored me, so I went elsewhere :p
     
  17. BajaElladan

    BajaElladan Certifiable
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2003
    Messages:
    1,820
    Likes Received:
    3
    Hail,

    First let me say that this information is being provided WAY TO LATE! Better late than never, but a huge number of players have become extremely angry, many I know of personally have quit with this being their "last straw."

    Secondly, the main use for BOS was clearly the sending of gold to the bank, not the only use but their main use. Folks have enjoyed being able to use this for quite a long time. Having it end "for all intent &amp; purpose" was a major annoyance and perceived step backward for a large number of players.

    Many players did not, and still do not, understand why this was necessary &amp; how it is supposed to improve the game and players enjoyment of the game.

    Many have not played long enuff to remember when the BOS did not exist. They needed, and need, time to know this was coming, why, and ways to adjust to so radical a change.

    I have played 123 months, and I will adapt. However, for quite some time now many players have looked upon removal of the Counsellor/Seers, major reduction in the availability of in game help from GM's, and decline in customer service in general as signs that EA was telling players "take whatever we do....or QUIT!"

    UO has a massive customer service problem, in my humble opinion, and the BOS change and how it was rolled out greatly added to the dissatisfaction of many.

    I have asked all of my friends to take deep breaths and wait...to see if explanations were coming...and if they made any sense.

    I personally, am not pleased with the BOS change, however, I can and shall adapt &amp; adjust.

    Like many, I want UO not only to survive, but to prosper and grow in player population.

    I fear this is a very uncertain and troubling time...coming on the heels of employee reductions, another cross-country move, and a sharply divided player population concerning Kingdom Reborn.

    This post/poll is very welcomed by me, and I expect by most. Also, Jeremy has been doing her best in extremely difficult circumstances, for which I, our entire community, and especially EA should be extremely grateful.

    I will accept whatever the final status is of BOS. It was I believe merely a big, heavy, straw that for many broke the camels back.

    Hopefully this is the beginning of a reconciliation between EA and its players, but MANY more, MUCH larger issues remain.

    Thx Orvago for perceiving the scope of the problem and acting.

    Elladan of Baja
     
  18. Guest

    Guest Guest

    There's a better way to slow the creation of gold that doesn't irritate the snot out of most people like this change does.

    Radically alter the loot tables.

    They need to be fixed anyway...99% of the stuff spawned as loot is total junk and just takes up server power for no good reason.
     
  19. Guest

    Guest Guest

    <blockquote><hr>

    *edits* I keep seeing the term "famring" is that when people like stay(ed) at swoop for hours on end to get gold? Dunno where the fun is in that :p I think I tried swoop a grand total of twice - it bored me, so I went elsewhere :p

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Yeah, that's farming. And yeah, it's boring as all get out, so no, the guild I'm in doesn't do that. We tend to start at the top of a dungeon and work to the bottom, then fight back out...course, that's pointless now.

    Worse is that the "farming" won't change any, they'll just farm where they can recall back and forth and it won't slow em down. Especially the ones who aren't even bothering to be at the keyboard while doing the farming...and yeah, there's scripts that work well enough for people to leave behind a tamer with pets or a well equipped warrior and let the script loot and bank for them.

    I watched one once, it really was quite amazing. I tried paging on him, but as usual no GM assistance for scripting, so I just cut in front and started killing what his scripted fighter was working on myself for awhile. I bet I knocked a whole 5% off his take for the night. Made me feel a bit better, anyway.
     
  20. Guest

    Guest Guest

    It was good to take it out. BUT it was not good to do it without changing monster loot quantity and or weight.

    Its been gone over again and again that pretty much any monster worth hunting will fill your bag within 15 minutes if you kill them with ANY speed at all.

    Now if it took an hour of fighting to fill up my pack, I wouldn't mind at all. But for people who cant recall or gate, their play is drastically interrupted, and places in which you cannot recall or gate into or out of will now go unused. No one will run 3-5 minutes to get someplace, only to hunt for 15 minutes then have to leave again.

    Pack Beetles are a solution sure, but one shouldn't be forced to use them to hunt.

    This was too big a change to be made alone. The killing of the BoS should have come along with other changes, and hopefully in a large overhaul to monster loot to difficulty overall. Its LONNNNNNG over due.
     
  21. Other (reply with feedback)


    My feedback is this change isn't going to slow me down one single bit. What it IS going to do is save me gold in the long run as I won't be buying the BoS's any longer. It may even actually MAKE more gold for me, as I'll make some time now to farm them every so often, since it seems the price on the powder has more than doubled. While some may be dependent on them, and refuse to admit there are ways to gold farm without one, I'll be happily farming in all of the places they've now left abandoned.
     
  22. Belmarduk

    Belmarduk Guest

    Hm this whole thing gives me an idea for a new way of farming things with other people - One person farms - the other transports the stuff to a bank in the mean while.
     
  23. That's ridiculous.
    If they want less gold to be banked, they should decrease the drop of gold.
    If they want gold sink, LRC cap below 50% is one.

    Personally I don't use BoS for ressource gathering. I use a giant beetle because I need to bring ressource at home, not at the bank.

    But for regular hunting, what does the nerf on BoS change?
    The gold drop is still the same, so if you find a way around, you can still have it. And what's the most efficient way around? A pala/archer on a giant beetle regularily emptying his giant beetle at the bank. For them the loot will be approximately the same.
    Tamers, who need more than 2 slots to have decent DPS, are indirectly nerfed.

    Efficiency of the change : pala/archers with top gear who had already millions will not be affected too much, tamers (both powergamers and casual) will be affected.

    Devs again thought head down. If you want less gold to enter in the economy, what do you do if you have half a brain? You generate less gold. EA has a better idea : they TRY to hang a millstone around your neck so maybe you won't take all the generated gold please please.

    That's totally rubbish. It was another poor way to attack scripters. Like with the dread spiders when they said "dread spiders weren't dread enough nanana". Yeah sure. Lie to yourself.
     
  24. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Thoughts on the change:

    The fun part of the game for most people is killing and looting. BOS allowed you to remain in areas longer to continue doing the FUN part of the game; how player will have to choose whether to loot gold or make many bank runs to deposit. To me this change lowers the FUN:Work ratio within the game, Clearly some items in game are fun some are like work.

    BOS at the current usage charge are fairly useless, recently I used them in Mag to send rubble to the bank with my stealther, that would not have been possible with the new change.

    The question for me with the economy in UO is does the current state help or hurt the game; and how would this change effect things. While inflation is pretty out of control (I stopped looting gold form kills when I reach over a billion gold on my vendors), the current state allows new player cheap entry into the game because gold is easy to obtain (farm); by increasing the value of gold you are raising the entry cost for new players.

    I believe the faucet being wide open helps newer players, I would suggest creating new drains rather then making changes to the faucet.
     
  25. Shelleybean

    Shelleybean Certifiable
    Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2003
    Messages:
    1,856
    Likes Received:
    51
    I don't like the BoS change but they could have simply changed the requirements for using the bags with gold. My main use for them was sending hides and other heavy items to the bank. I think now they need to let us use commodity deeds anywhere, not just at the bank.
     
  26. Vote - Other

    Feedback - Yet another example of EA shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.

    Everyone who posts on this forum has had the potential to efficiently farm gold using a BoS for years. We could all have amassed multimillions by sitting (attended) at our favourite spawn and banking when our backpacks filled.
    This gold is still in the game.

    Future players - you know, the ones we are depending on for the survival of the game - will not have this option available to them. I know that having to make the occasional recall or sacred journey is not a terrible burden, but the point remains; tomorrows' players will not be able to hunt for gold as efficiently as we could.

    To stretch Jeremy's "faucet" analogy a little: We already have swimming-pools full of gold, while EA have just made it a bit more difficult for new players to collect a wash-basin full.


    I will be interested to see if the other "fix-the economy" changes cause a major drop in prices.
    I very much doubt they will.

    Will the newly-buffed crafter who makes a fantastic weapon put it on a vendor for 10mill, knowing that there are plenty of players who can and will pay that amount, or will they do their bit to fight inflation, and sell it for 100K?

    Altruism is not a common trait in UO, so I can make an educated guess at what the weapon will be sold for.


    Players and developers alike need to accept that the game economy is broken beyond repair, and that real-world economic principles and methods can never be applied to UO.


    Lurker
     
  27. Lord Kotan

    Lord Kotan Slightly Crazed
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    Messages:
    1,299
    Likes Received:
    60
    I think the changes are good for the economy, but the spiders in TW are my favor monster, but it takes FOREVER to walk in and out of the TW
     
  28. Guest

    Guest Guest

    <blockquote><hr>

    I don't like the BoS change but they could have simply changed the requirements for using the bags with gold. My main use for them was sending hides and other heavy items to the bank. I think now they need to let us use commodity deeds anywhere, not just at the bank.

    [/ QUOTE ]That would be a very good change. Of course we've been begging for it for years, so don't hold your breath. [​IMG]
     
  29. Agrees!! Makes sense to me..... [​IMG]
     
  30. I don't see why the weight limit could not be 100 stone instead of 10 stone. At 100 stone you can send 5k gold and a reasonable amount of leather etc. When you have monsters that can have over 1k loot each a 5k cap is hit quite quickly. I don't really think the excess gold in the game is from the normal monster loot of attended unscripted players. Too many items were duped and it has been posted that 1,000,000 checks as well as checks for over 1,000,000 were among them. Some of the duped house items were deleted but others went IDOC and the items were recovered by players.

    In another thread someone said there was an exploit with the bag of sending and items out of the backpack (including gold piles of 60k) were being sent. If the intent is to change this type of exploit a 5k limit at least slow it down but the real problem is the exploit of sending items out of the backpack. What the current patch has done is pretty much nerf another playstyle - collecting resources for crafting. I know back in the day yadda yadda no bags of sending etc. but there were also less quests and land masses and less everything - less game. At this rate with wood spawn changes, ore spawn changes and now weight transportation changes it begs the question why bother? I can go and kill for 2 or 3 minutes and then go to the bank or just don't loot my kills. Then why am I killing anything?


    The Bag of Sending did not produce the gold it is a tool for transportation.

    I suppose LRC and recall without magery or sacred journey are the next cuts in the direction you are heading. When you make enough resources and gold rare or just not worth it then the paying customers become rare because the game is not worth it.

    It seems that the game is moving toward retro/siege ruleset a step at a time.

    And, just a thought, why don't you make it so no items can be sold for over 1,000,000 gold on a vendor? That could help tweak the economy don't you think?
     
  31. RAEL of LS

    RAEL of LS Guest

    While I understand the need to bring the economy back into line with what it should be, this is not the way to do it, imo...

    If the intent was to impede scripters, then fine, but it really wont do much good over time, they will merely find a way around it...

    If the intent is to decrease the gold flow into banks and bring the economy into line, then fine, but it isnt the bags that are causing the inflation of gold, it is the rate at which it spawns...

    It wasn't the bags that brought the excess gold into the economy, it was the dupers, exploiters and scripters... Period.

    BoS's are not to blame and with or with out them the economy will not change...

    Address the loot drops, the npc purchases and for goodness sake stop the scripting... actually let the GM's do something about scripters when they are reported and obviously scripting, reduce the number of items that an npc will buy from players, (as it used to be) and remove duped gold and such from the game... These are the actions that will change the economy, not nerfing bags of sending...

    Additionally, high end creatures should be harder to kill, thusly reducing the amount of gold that they generate... a Demon should not be killed in one swat of my katana and a white wyrm should take more than 3 ev's to kill... This will also help the economy...

    if ya want to nerf bags of sending... limit the number of items it can send in a certain amount of time... the weight limits are crippling... one use per 10 minutes
    (select your own time figure) should do it and maybe only one item per time period...


    In any case, the bags of sending are not the culprit here...

    RAEL of LS
     
  32. Post deleted by Gwendolynne
     
  33. Basara

    Basara UO Forum Moderator
    Moderator Professional Wiki Moderator Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend Campaign Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2003
    Messages:
    8,464
    Likes Received:
    587
    Edited to clear a few typoes)

    I voted "other".

    I think the change was needed for limiting gold farmers, but it made the amount per charge too low, to where it negatively impacts small-scale resource gatherers, and therefore in the long run BENEFITS the scripter resource gatherers, causing additional economy problems.


    The changes really went about it the wrong way. If you REALLY want to remove gold from the system, don't make the bags use more charges - make them CHARGE PEOPLE'S BANK ACCOUNTS when they are used.

    All the current changes do, to someone still using the BOS, is REDISTRIBUTE THE GOLD, moving it from player to player - No gold is actually removed from the system. THERE IS NO GOLD SINK IN THE NEW METHOD - AND NO REAL DISINCENTIVE FOR THE GOLD FARMER.

    A BETTER CHANGE:

    If you returned bags to their original sending capacity, and instituted surcharges for their use, gold WOULD be pulled from the economy.

    Example surcharges:

    a. 50 gold per stone weight of GOLD sent through bag (this makes a net gold send of ZERO, in all cases, using a bag).

    b. 10 gold per stone weight of stacked resources sent through a bag, for normal resources (no "color" tag), much more for the tagged ones. Therefore, a resource gatherer would be spending as much gold to send the items as they are getting from the creatures, if not more. In other word, we pay for the convenience, and will still be making bank runs to deposit the gold (though less often), because of a., above, to pay for the shipments.

    If it cost 10 GP/stone to send normal leather, one would have to have 400 or 440 GP (Elf/human) to send the leather from a single Hiryu. Add in a modifer of x10 for colored leather, and even the gold+gems of a typical dragon does not add up to 2000 GP (for an elf) or 2200 GP (for a human) to send the (trammel) leather sending cost. The same would hold true for Felluca-collected leather even at a x5 multiplier.

    c. non-stackable items have a gold cost of 1000 per stone weight. After all, if it's that valuable, to send by bag, one should have to pay for the convenience.

    d. Checks would become unsendable by the BOS.

    This is a much more reasonable change, and IT IS A TRUE GOLD SINK. Such a system would remove gold from the system - unlike the current change which removes NONE, just discourages collection of it.
     
  34. Guest

    Guest Guest

    The way I see this is that we players are asking other players to buy objects for too much gold. If the game developers would just put a cap on what you can sell an item for. This bag of sending thing would be a mute point. I have seen things selling for 20 million gold. Nothing in the game is worth more a a few thousand gold each. We have done this to ourselves by being greedy. Maybe the bag of sending change will be good for the economy in the long run but I don't have to like it.
     
  35. Zalan

    Zalan Babbling Loonie
    Governor Stratics Veteran Alumni Stratics Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2005
    Messages:
    2,919
    Likes Received:
    346
    I believe the Devs have very flawed logic. If you want to fix the Economy Devs Get off your --- &amp; do something about SCRIPTING.

    The Economy in this game is screwed no matter what ou do. Just hurt your true player base makes since huh?
     
  36. <blockquote><hr>

    <blockquote><hr>

    Its a bad change. There have been many suggestions for gold sinks in the past that would have been 100% more effective than this.

    [/ QUOTE ]
    This isn't about removing gold from the economy, it's about slowing the creation. The Bag of Sending has made it insanely easy to generate hundreds of thousands of gold per hour in the most ideal conditions.

    On a side note, this poll is going to be overwhelmingly voted No. Even I don't like the Bag of Sending change as a player, but I realize that it is a necessary change. It is like the Lower Reagent Cost issue. Lots of people know, including the developers, that it needs to be addressed, but it would be unpopular.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    You would have too agree that the majority of the gold in-circulation was scripted/farmed by UMs (unattended macroers). Thus, the gold isn't our fault, its the devs for not stoping the problem before it was a problem. So, when someone gets an arty for the first time, the first thing they do is try to sell it at the going rate. There will always be someone on hand with that gold willing to buy it without a negotiated price. Most of those players seem the most suspicious to me as being scripters due to the fact its almost rare to find someone in this game that actually dedicated themselves to collecting that much gold on their own.

    So if the majority of the gold in circulation is scripted, then it wont effect the amount coming in nearly as much as they hoped it would. Only due to the fact scripters will still be scripting and selling the gold over PayPal. The average player still takes the hit harder.
     
  37. Another "other" here. I perfectly agree with the devs intent of reducing inflation.Just i am a little confused about the method. I don't think it will work very well, as connor outlined. Some people will whine a bit but sooner or later they'll adapt and the gold ouput will be just a bit lower.

    I think that inserting some sort of direct control on the gold loot in monsters would have been much more useful for inflation control.
     
  38. As one of the "new" (returned after 7 years away really) players, I have to say that the BoS changes have slowed me down. I can no longer spend an hour killing cyclopses and titans in Ilshenar and come out with 200-300 thousand gold in less than an hour. I can't do that against troglodytes either.

    However...

    The scripters who have been stationed in the crystal demon room from my return day have left. Now I can see just why they were there in the first place.
    My own hunting pattern has changed drastcally, so I now have more variety in my game play. When I bank one run after less than 5 minutes, I now often head out to riskier destinations which offer less loot per creature and more potential for the big hauls. So instead of buying a boom stick or soul seeker, I can find them now.

    So instead of sitting in one spot until my fingers bleed, I have a little bit more variety in my game play.

    I still want to be able to spend more time playing and less time going to the bank. So it's a double edged sword. There are good and bad things about the change.
     
  39. Masuri

    Masuri Seasoned Veteran
    Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Messages:
    422
    Likes Received:
    13
    I understand the need to keep the amount of money in the game under control. But the devs seem to be clueless about how to do so, or what part of the playerbase they should be targeting. This is really very basic math, basic economics, and - at least I hope - basic game theory.

    Putting in changes that limit the amount of money coming into the economy hurts NEWBIE PLAYERS, while not hurting established players (the ones you need to be targeting) very much at all. Worse, it will only slow the inflow of money by a TINY amount.

    What is actually needed is a massive MONEY SINK to allow players to voluntarily get their money out of the economy. Let them buy hot pink uber rare gizmos to ride around on and show off how cool they are for 1 billionbajillion gold - whatever. Say it with me. MONEY SINK.

    The BOS change hurts newer players, won't stop scripters, doesn't put a dent in the economy, pales next to moneysink-related proposals, oh yeah, and pisses the hell out of your playerbase. IT WAS ALL-AROUND STUPID. Congrats.

    I'm having horrible Guild Wars flashbacks right about now. They ruined that game the same way - nerfing the ways people got money to the point that noobs couldn't ever catch up to the veterans (who'd long since made their fortunes and cheered on the nerfs, much like the rich players here cheer on the BOS nerf). Have you folks ever heard of a gaming SANDBOX? Please wise-up, devs, and get back to a smart, creative Designer Dragon-style economy. Google him if you must, but know that for each one of you who must, I weep inside.
     
  40. minificelle

    minificelle Guest

    I dont like the change at all.

    Many monsters in the game have 1000 gold drop loot (not counting anything else) and they die in seconds. So, you kill (yeah fun) 15, 20 at most and you are ready for a recall (beurk crap). Its just tedious and boring. And a pain with a char without easy recall abilities.

    Old bag:
    I used to go in many places in the game, killing here, killing there, at my own pace, exploring, staying in some places for hours, in other for minutes, looting gold, skinning, going town when i was in the mood to go town...
    Well, that was fun and freedom (you know the thing most people agree to be the "big plus" of UO).

    New bag:
    Most of my old places are now plain dull and boring as i cant stand to recall every 5 minutes...i resay it: I CANT STAND TO RECALL EVERY 5 MINUTES.
    So, i restrict myself to the easy bank acces places...Unfortunatly, such places with "worth going monsters" are not that much.
    I dont even skin anymore as that only means "go bank sooner".
    I could play with packies and/or beetles but i didnt made a tamer to play with a timber wolf as pet...
    That being said, i still make gold as fast as before, and perhaps even faster (no more skinning, no more exploring).

    I have adapted, yes, but at such a cost that i start to ask myself whats the point...my freedom is gone.

    As my interest in the game is mostly PVM with little to no interest in RP and PVP, i am now left with the choice to either recall every 5 minutes (no way), play in like 3% of the world (getting boring fast), kill without looting (no point) or just searching another game (sad because UO managed to attract me because of freedom just to destoy this freedom 3 monthes later).

    About the inflation and economy, i dont really see a problem...
    If an item cost 10 millions and i make 1 million a day or if the item cost 1000 and i make 100 a day, this item still cost me 10 days. Inflation is only bad when income doesnt grow as fast as prices.
    Then, most, if not all MMOs, enter this "broken and inflated economy" after they reach maturity.
    Gold has only one use in a game: buy stuff. As soon as you have all you need, gold has like zero value for you, so its start accumulating.
    After a while, you have less and less stuff you need to buy and so much gold that prices dont matter a lot, so inflate.
    But after a while, items too start to lose their value because most players have managed to get them so only news players are potential buyers and then prices stabilise high but not out of proportion.

    So now, this new bag hinders the new player (need many gold to buy many stuff) way way more than the vet (has already millions gold, knows exactly what to kill/where to go if he ever need more and has like zero need).

    About the scripters...
    Oki perhaps they are stopped for now but for how long ? They are perhaps scripters and cheaters, but dont think they are stupid...
    Finding new spots and writting new scripts wont take long for the ones that are worth their name of scripters. Then the average Joe that know nothing about scripts but google will have them too some days later.
    And a bot can recall every 10 secondes 24/day if needed without even being annoyed a single bit.

    So this change will stop scripters some days at most and thats it.

    So for me, this new bag is just ruining what i enjoy in the game, does nothing for economy, hinders the new player more than the vet and wont do anything to any good scripter. What a good change...

    My opinion.
     
  41. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Typically halfcooked try at a solution to a problem that needs a much better solution. Sad, they yet again have to mess with some of the more fun aspects of the game.
     
  42. Guest

    Guest Guest

    They keep it up and there wont be anyone left to play the game....imo
    [​IMG]
     
  43. Hotmail

    Hotmail Guest

    I'm disappointed because i don't believe that we were "consulted" prior to this change being implemented. There are numerous other things we have requested, so why implement this when our pleas for other changes go on "dear ears?"
     
  44. Guest

    Guest Guest

    As I understand why this was done, I must agree with many others. Would it have not been better to limit or even disallow gold from being used? I have switched my 2 main toons to having beetles, this does make it a tad bit easier for collecting resources for me.

    I do think the amount of powder is really over done. Just 4-5 powder for all that effort?
     
  45. Guest

    Guest Guest

    My poll answer was "other", the only reason I think it sucks is because I was preaty much making my UO living off of selling the bags and powders and now that market is in the crapper. But other than that I don't care one way or the other because BoS was only an emergency outlet any other time. Now I go back to G strength pots as my outlet. I did not use them for gold or resource gathering.
     
  46. Ok I will ask you because you won't laugh at my ignorance.

    If rubble still existed as in those 100 stone ferns, it will now cost 10 charges to send one fern?

    If this is so, I cannot for the life of me figure out what the bag is good for now.

    Ms. Jeremy please explain the use a bos has now. Please.
     
  47. Guest

    Guest Guest

    One more thing.

    You would think with all the problems in this game now and with KR that the dev team would have better things to do than nerf the players that are still hanging in here hoping that uo recovers.

    All the fixes for KR and the only thing they can do for the 2d client after all this time instead of any fixes is nerf the bags of sending...geezus. [​IMG]
     
  48. Guest

    Guest Guest

    I think this was a big mistake on their part, i never thought it was all that bad in the first place. Why fix whats broken? They have completely made htem useless
     
  49. Guest

    Guest Guest

    The change never hurt the people gold scripting in all reality, they just moved to a diff loca where they can recall in &amp; out when full with no impact, ore &amp; boards most of them recalled anyways to to this. Now, average Joe UO player was the one hurt, really dampening his playin. 1st you make him mine numerous hrs just to get the small amount of ore he needs to fill BODS even low end ores like shadow or copper ones. Now he has to spend more time recalling out &amp; walking back into area's you can't recall into, Ishy for one (But I don't think marking in Ish Is good either). Personally I think the bags should of been limited to being able to send 10 to 15k a pop to a bank, and weight wise of 250/300 or so in resource weight. 10 is absurd, you might of just as well deleted them in game as to do this.
     
  50. Guest

    Guest Guest

    <blockquote><hr>

    As I understand why this was done, I must agree with many others. Would it have not been better to limit or even disallow gold from being used? I have switched my 2 main toons to having beetles, this does make it a tad bit easier for collecting resources for me.

    I do think the amount of powder is really over done. Just 4-5 powder for all that effort?

    [/ QUOTE ]

    can i just make it clear that you still get 100 powder for 200 zoogi. the 4-5 powder thing refers to the quantity you get given along with the bag.

    and i think the change sucks too. if you want to hit the scripters, hit the damn scripters. don't penalise the straight players.