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.


I am aware, and do not care. I am a believer in the social definiton of words/terms taking on a popular meaning. In fact, I wiki'd it before I posted just to get the spelling right.

It also doesn't bother me when people mis-use ironic, or the phrase "that begs the question", which are both swung about quite inappropriately very frequently. Because we've defined the term as how we want to use it in the vernacular. Rather than fight the avalanche and lose the point of an argument, I've long since decided just to go with the flow.

Technically wrong? Yes. But much less pretentious than making a point of correcting people when it isn't really important.

Except invoking a principal like Occam's Razor in order to cash in on it's credibility means that you also must adhere to what it actually means, or it's use is meaningless. Otherwise you are simply dropping names that don't apply to the situation, with the expectation that it makes you somehow more right. Albert Einstein would agree with me; the Special Theory of Relativity supports my claim.

foolofsound:

Except invoking a principal like Occam's Razor in order to cash in on it's credibility means that you also must adhere to what it actually means, or it's use is meaningless. Otherwise you are simply dropping names that don't apply to the situation, with the expectation that it makes you somehow more right. Albert Einstein would agree with me; the Special Theory of Relativity supports my claim.

I wasn't cashing in on credibility of a two word phrase used, as stated, in the vernacular. In fact, I'm baffled that you would even think there is credibility to "cash in on" in the first place. Its a concept, not a precedent at law. Hell, the real Occam's razor isn't even a logical justification. Its just a tool.

The point I was making was understood cleanly with the words that I used. Beyond that, if someone wants get get tied in knots over it? That's fine, but ironically, I didn't care beyond my purpose with the initial use anyway. It begs the question as to why anyone would feel they have to couch their arguments behind anything like "cashing in on" some concept or person to begin with.

Ssaliss:

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.

I don't know if this was pointed out or not, but there are plenty more than 200000 items in the game. Estarra stated in the OP that there are currently 200000 items strictly in shops, which is why stockrooms are being paid attention.

Rainydays:


I am aware, and do not care. I am a believer in the social definiton of words/terms taking on a popular meaning. In fact, I wiki'd it before I posted just to get the spelling right.

It also doesn't bother me when people mis-use ironic, or the phrase "that begs the question", which are both swung about quite inappropriately very fequently. Because we've defined the term as how we want to use it in the vernacular. Rather than fight the avalanche and lose the point of an argument, I've long since decided just to go with the flow.

Technically wrong? Yes. But much less pretentious than making a point of correcting people when it isn't really important.

Well, you're promoting ignorance among the populace as well as embracing relativism, which does lead to logical errors. I'm not being so much as pretentious except to stop ignorance from continuing on.

The vernacular does little more than conflate concepts leading to, well, quite a lot problems. I hate to say it, but a large portion of problems within society are a result of stupidity and incompetence. You need language to think. Using language imprecisely means imprecise thought. I think you can follow me.

Well, you're promoting ignorance among the populace as well as embracing relativism, which does lead to logical errors. I'm not being so much as pretentious except to stop ignorance from continuing on.

The vernacular does little more than conflate concepts leading to, well, quite a lot problems. I hate to say it, but a large portion of problems within society are a result of stupidity and incompetence. You need language to think. Using language imprecisely means imprecise thought. I think you can follow me.


I don't see it as ignorance, I simply see it as a fluid and evolving language. Therefore, I don't feel the word is being misused, I see it as being redefined. I used to get hung up particularly over one of my examples above, "ironic", in particular, but honestly, doing that never once did me any favours.

So when Brian Williams started tossing out both the examples I used above on the NBC Nightly News, I said, you know what? Society has cast its vote on how it wants its language to be used here.

I personally get annoyed by "it's" when it should be "its". Especially when it happens multiple times in the same sentence.

That said, I did also notice a 'fequently' in the post right before it.

To me, these are much more basic than quibbling about the meaning of Occam's Razor. :|

Edit: I will also note that I resisted commenting on these until now, and I have only broken down because you are still going!

Xenthos:

I personally get annoyed by "it's" when it should be "its". Especially when it happens multiple times in the same sentence.

That said, I did also notice a 'fequently' in the post right before it.

To me, these are much more basic than quibbling about the meaning of Occam's Razor. :|

Edit: I will also note that I resisted commenting on these until now, and I have only broken down because you are still going!

Particularly when no one's actually stated Ockham's Razor ("Plurality shall not be assumed without necessity"). Willem of Ockham would agree with me that an argument is most clearly lost when you must quibble over the meaning of words and centuries old quotes, versus the actual content. (I can do this too, guys.)

Eventru:


Particularly when no one's actually stated Ockham's Razor ("Plurality shall not be assumed without necessity"). Willem of Ockham would agree with me that an argument is most clearly lost when you must quibble over the meaning of words and centuries old quotes, versus the actual content. (I can do this too, guys.)

Eventru, your ability to make a paragraph explode to a size (and colour where applicable) far beyond anything it has a right to be would probably even make a 14th century friar pause.

Rainydays:


Eventru, your ability to make a paragraph explode to a size (and colour where applicable) far beyond anything it has a right to be would probably even make a 14th century friar pause.

He's not fond of pausing. Whenever he pauses, I get a word in, and, well, I don't pause often for him to try to get back in the conversation... :P

(In case my point wasn't clear, stop it you three, and get back on topic.)

Eventru:


Particularly when no one's actually stated Ockham's Razor ("Plurality shall not be assumed without necessity"). Willem of Ockham would agree with me that an argument is most clearly lost when you must quibble over the meaning of words and centuries old quotes, versus the actual content. (I can do this too, guys.)

It's called Philosophy. It's a discipline that does exactly this.

Edit: Gotta love my timing. Posted ^ just as Eventru posted his. I'll leave it for posterity's sake, but it was unintentional to post "after" being told to stop.

Ssaliss:

A way to link manse- and org-shops would be nice as well, for those that have both. Would allow you to stock both shops at once, and would also allow an org-shop to take advantage of an expanded manse-shop.

Stock Room bloat, not Please give me Cool Stuff.

I'm amused by people one day saying that gold is worthless and we need more sinks, and then the next they're bitching about how they need to sell all the things and make all the gold.

EDIT: Realized how snarky that sounds. I know this is a big deal to a lot of people, and I don't mean to make light of that.

Bump for making arty vials hold a ton :) I would get more to only need like 20 vials total!

Could we maybe look at some other things like an arty that can absorb power from stones? This would both let us destroy stones to fill it (think a cube but holds more/faster and only works as a powerstone) and get the 3% power or whatever you sometimes end up with.

I like the idea of artys to fill in gaps and reduce content/size. :)

Xenthos:

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.

A random thought did occur while walking to work today, could we actually start making use of flowers. We'd probably need to make them more available depending on how, but right now they only exist as to be used in designs. What if some new abilities actually started consuming them? (Off-topic I know, but best place to start it.)

Slept on it, but if everyone had their wares bought out it would be easier to work on that 250 limit. But why 250? Why not 400 and two artifacts at 300 shop stock units each to reach the cap of 1k?

And stop saying that it is because of Walmart this or that. Walmart this, or Walmart that is because people have the ability to get 3, maybe 4 trades active? (artifact, demigod, second demigod trade ) or have maybe all of them with skill flexing. What do you imagine people do with all those skills? So if you want to stop these Walmarts get rid of the ability to get so many trades. Not slap restrictions on everyone who doesn't have them.

Now what happens with the dingbat bin item? 16 different bins, 17 with the non-bin bin. 14 items per bin. Not exactly as useful as it sounds now.

Can we have certain items not count to the total 250/400/ 1000 limit? Such as kegs? Or are we promoting to buy more credits to expand our shops or to buy the level 3 expansions for keg runes?

Or just close down shops that are unused and have long term dormant keepers? Not saying destroy it, but close it so that the items don't count to the total limit - and see where that puts us now.

Edit: as for people that use the shop to hold precious items, then envoy for more things that can be built to hold said items. Closets stop the decay on clothes. Racks stock the decay on armor, weapons, and instruments. Jewelry boxes slows the decay on your baubles and rings. Ask for things that could be built instead of opt for the more expensive shop. That's a thought.

If that could be done, we can divide to see how many items we have in shops that are up for sale, causing the lag, and how many items are just kept because of the non-decay value.

ASK MILLA WARES

Falcon:

And stop saying that it is because of Walmart this or that. Walmart this, or Walmart that is because people have the ability to get 3, maybe 4 trades active? (artifact, demigod, second demigod trade ) or have maybe all of them with skill flexing. What do you imagine people do with all those skills? So if you want to stop these Walmarts get rid of the ability to get so many trades. Not slap restrictions on everyone who doesn't have them.

ASK MILLA WARES


Tada

I have just under 300 letters of all sorts...paid tons of gold to get a good collection...now I have to sell them way below cost in order to get some gold out of it. And now clearing out stock that has never sold for eons such as shoes and blouses that don't sell, ever since they introduced that artie that records clothing. A positive spin is that I am now selling that candy I collected ages ago.

So in all, a positive drive to clear out stockrooms but also a huge loss. 250 is way too small, 500 is reasonable for most players.

I believe no admin should be bullied into the "if this happens then I quit" attitude. It's that kind of behaviour that becomes counter-productive not only in gaming but in real life. But on the same token, forcing the 250 limit when many have asked graciously for a 500 limit is bullying, no?

The difference between Lusternia and the other IRE games is that trade is a huge factor. The first real hit was the increase in comms in designs, the second hit was to change how comms were made, the limitations etc. Now imposing such a harsh shop limitation? Seems whenever a problem crops up, the tradesmen get knocked down more harshly than they should.

I am all for trying to reduce lag and capping… and whatever else to resolve the problem, but please, be reasonable. Pretty please.

And the reason why I have so much of some items is because these days it is hard to get a particular tradesman.

Everyone can get all trades. Hello skillflexing. The demigod and artifact additions just allow you to have more than one active.