Actually I see other shops that sell flowers are about on par with what I have, which adds up to a few hundred each. Starhaven's ridiculous, there's a couple hundred of EACH TYPE there. Though with Lendren retiring I'm guessing those will fade out and not be replaced anyway, but you get the idea. There ARE a lot of flowers, so I think rifting/combining them would actually help.

EDIT: Estarra, I see you commented on origami not making much impact. Could you tell us whether flowers make a difference? Thanks.

This thread is interesting (apart of course, from the valididty of it) if only in that it is getting a rise out of people who usually are content to sit in the bleachers.

I say, it calls for the vigorous application of Occam's razor. The simplest solution is to slap a straight cap on it, and to Nil with the rest of it. That said, 250 struck me as pretty draconian.

I'm mildly scared of what is planned for vials.

Estarra:

4. Oh, hrm, I see now. It's something we can look into, though I'm actually not seeing origami being a huge issue.

Even if it's not a big factor in the amount of items floating around, it's still something that is bought in bulk, more often than not. Buying 40 at a time is probably relatively common. Making them multiple-use would make them far easier to stock, if nothing else. Instead of stocking 100 of each, we'd get away with stocking ten of each if they had ten uses per origami.

Rainydays:

I'm mildly scared of what is planned for vials.

Be scared! Be very scared!

Muhahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

5% of the times you try to sip from a vial, it bites you in self-defense.

Ssaliss:

5% of the times you try to sip from a vial, it bites you in self-defense.

That's hot.

Estarra, can you please answer the flowers question?

Ssaliss:

The whole point of this is to _reduce_ the number of items in the game. By adding in a denizen that automatically restocks the shop from the chest (if I read you correctly), we'd be right back where we started.

as Estarra has pointed out a few times, the "point of this" is not to "reduce the number of items in the game" it's to to focus on the shops and the reduction on the cap in them. As such, my points are valid and should be addressed. Simply shooting them down because you don't think they're worth addressing doesn't make you right. Adding methods of storage or increasing the productivity of items that are consumable or generally sold in bulk in shops is a way to lower the amount that needs to be placed in shops to account for supply and demand.

Aubrey:

Estarra, can you please answer the flowers question?

If the question is to make them riftable, my instinct is to say no. Flowers serve no purpose (like herbs, etc.) so I see no reason to make them use a mechanic that is meant to be for special type of consumable items. Yes, they're pretty but there is no sense whatsoever that people should be collecting hundreds or thousands of them. Surely, one of each is enough?

storing things is the problem, there is too much bloat and apparently it is causing overall game lag - so just moving where you are stroking the items is not going to help, the items do need to be moved, either used or destroyed.

250 items is how much you will be able to drop on the floor of your shop. there is nothing that stops you from keeping what you have now, but if you have more than the limit EVERYTHING is going to start decaying as normal with them - meaning people who buy from you is gonna get up getting a shoddy if you let the decay go on for too long.

arandor:


as Estarra has pointed out a few times, the "point of this" is not to "reduce the number of items in the game" it's to to focus on the shops and the reduction on the cap in them. As such, my points are valid and should be addressed. Simply shooting them down because you don't think they're worth addressing doesn't make you right. Adding methods of storage or increasing the productivity of items that are consumable or generally sold in bulk in shops is a way to lower the amount that needs to be placed in shops to account for supply and demand.

What I was referring to was Estarra saying there were 210.000 items in the game, and we need to reduce that to 80.000 items. Stockrooms would be a very good place to start with, seeing how it's non-decay and many of them hold several thousands of items. Simply moving items elsewhere wouldn't solve that problem.

Estarra:


If the question is to make them riftable, my instinct is to say no. Flowers serve no purpose (like herbs, etc.) so I see no reason to make them use a mechanic that is meant to be for special type of consumable items. Yes, they're pretty but there is no sense whatsoever that people should be collecting hundreds or thousands of them. Surely, one of each is enough?

Thank you. Actually no, one of each isn't enough, unfortunately. From my experience, people will buy a few at a time. Furthermore, the flower pot produces different types randomly. It's not like I can just say "oh hey someone bought the ONE poppy I had in stock, let me make another one." No, I have to wait perhaps a week until the pot happens to produce one. And the pot produces six at a time. Am I supposed to put five in a Nexus or hold onto them and let them spam up my inventory while they decay, so that I can stock just the one? It makes having a pot seem not very worthwhile, if so. The reason people get pots is so they can sell the flowers to others, not so they can wear every flower themselves (edit: or so they can destroy the majority of what the pot produces).

Estarra:


If the question is to make them riftable, my instinct is to say no. Flowers serve no purpose (like herbs, etc.) so I see no reason to make them use a mechanic that is meant to be for special type of consumable items. Yes, they're pretty but there is no sense whatsoever that people should be collecting hundreds or thousands of them. Surely, one of each is enough?

It is not; I have a garden that I paid credits for. It produces flowers randomly, whatever it grows I scoop up and throw in my shop for sale.

A couple of days can produce enough flowers to block out a huge portion of the 'item cap', at which point stocking flowers becomes implausible. You're spending way more time than it is worth to only stock a couple of the flower types so that everything else stays non-decay, and who the heck wants to bother with that for something that is roleplay-only?

I can understand not wanting to make a mechanic for them, but I did pay a lot of credits for a garden that has no purpose except to make the things.

Estarra:


If the question is to make them riftable, my instinct is to say no. Flowers serve no purpose (like herbs, etc.) so I see no reason to make them use a mechanic that is meant to be for special type of consumable items. Yes, they're pretty but there is no sense whatsoever that people should be collecting hundreds or thousands of them. Surely, one of each is enough?

Aside from what Aubrey has said, they are also design commodities. Excluding their use as gifts what other purpose have they served in game? They seem more in-line with what you buy from a comm shop than any other type of item, you just get them in a comparatively unique way.

Rainydays:

This thread is interesting (apart of course, from the valididty of it) if only in that it is getting a rise out of people who usually are content to sit in the bleachers.

I say, it calls for the vigorous application of Occam's razor. The simplest solution is to slap a straight cap on it, and to Nil with the rest of it. That said, 250 struck me as pretty draconian.

I'm mildly scared of what is planned for vials.

Except that isn't Occam's razor at all :P. It's a common misconception that Occam's razor is "the simplest solution is the best" when in actuality, it's more along the lines of "the solution with the least entities is the best." A prime example would be heliocentric versus geocentric astronomy. Both work, actually, but you'll find that you have to do far less math using the heliocentric model.




ON TOPIC:

Giving players time to get rid of stock is a good thing. Frankly, it's a slap in the face to have our legs capped at the knees. Take steps, if it must be done.

Even in my shop, which I barely run, has >600 items. I can't imagine how this will affect people that actually stock things.


Also, there will be a heavy heavy economic backlash. Do consider that!

If everyone wasn't afk so often in this game, it might be easier to get trade people on market when you need them! Then there could be more direct business going on outside of shops. I can't count how many times I've tried to catch someone on market and have left the game since I can't get anyone to make the things I need.

The real critical point here is whether the market will get more attention or if people will just get bored/frustrated more easily and QQ more.

re: vials

Can't we just have some form of item that shopkeepers can purchase that allows players to put gems into and pay to have it make vials for them?

*puts 100 opal in machine*
*pulls lever which takes money from player for service*
*machine spits out 20 opal vials*

Saran:

re: vials

Can't we just have some form of item that shopkeepers can purchase that allows players to put gems into and pay to have it make vials for them?

*puts 100 opal in machine*
*pulls lever which takes money from player for service*
*machine spits out 20 opal vials*

Unfortunately I think this would fall into the same category of "shops won't produce items at point of sale" which Estarra has said cannot/will not happen. :(

Another idea regarding vials: what about something similar to a keystone? If I put a key into the stone, it just sort of "pauses" the decay. Then if I take the key out, it shows the same decay time as when I first put it in (I think?). Same effect as stockrooms, really. Except they're all in one container. Kind of like putting 100 vials' worth of potion in a keg instead of in 100 separate vials. This wouldn't count for designed vials, just the standard gem ones. There might be one for each gem type, with a max capacity of, say, 100 individual vials in each. Does this make sense?

Estarra:

I also don't understand what people mean by "increase origami so they have 5-10".

I think I mentioned before making items on purchase isn't really doable.

Instead of origami having a one time use thing, make them have more uses. For example, like a magic charge on a ring, it gets 10 uses and can be recharged. In this case, however, the origami would have 5 uses and then be gone. Hope that helps!

Doh, saw someone responded already. Ignore....

Aubrey:

Unfortunately I think this would fall into the same category of "shops won't produce items at point of sale" which Estarra has said cannot/will not happen. :(

Another idea regarding vials: what about something similar to a keystone? If I put a key into the stone, it just sort of "pauses" the decay. Then if I take the key out, it shows the same decay time as when I first put it in (I think?). Same effect as stockrooms, really. Except they're all in one container. Kind of like putting 100 vials' worth of potion in a keg instead of in 100 separate vials. This wouldn't count for designed vials, just the standard gem ones. There might be one for each gem type, with a max capacity of, say, 100 individual vials in each. Does this make sense?

Well, first, Estarra said they were already working on vials and that we didn't need to submit more ideas.

Secondly, how would this solve anything, other than making vials temporarily non-decay (which I personally don't see as a problem)? You'd still have to have the actual vials around (decay-time, contents, sips left, etc).