Items/money/levels wipe.

[mangamaniac]

Wiping all the inventories will only add angry players. Such an action can make impopoular the developers, and even if TMW should be 'resetted' anyway with the new server, I'm sure that many people who find out their accounts wiped will give up playing.

Anyway, IMHO this bug shouldn't be considered at all: the economy of TMW seems however stable.

That's exactly my oppinion, too. Wiping out the inventories will make the older players lose their interest. Many of them have collected rares in an honest way, they would be the people, who are punished most.

[Len]

Hey,

Len do you remember what people did just to pick up such an iron ore... they even exploitet bugs... =(

There are so many drop stealers at the game... think there will be much troubles... don't you think?

But instead of this I really like the idea...

Andi =)

http://forums.themanaworld.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=3776

Yes I think drop stealing is the lowest of the low, and it is a concern but people still manage to hunt for ore successfully (most of the time)

That's exactly my oppinion, too. Wiping out the inventories will make the older players lose their interest. Many of them have collected rares in an honest way, they would be the people, who are punished most.

Unfortunately that’s life, I wish such extreme measures didn’t need to be taken but...

[Sanga]

May I suggest that if you do an item wipe, you exclude all items that are equipped at the time of the wipe? This will keep a *small* number of existing rares in the game, and even with level wipe (which I think should *not* be done) will allow people to recover quickly, rather than having to rebuild from scratch.

Note that items that are currently available via a one-time quest (scythe, short sword) should be made available for purchase from an NPC (at a suitably large price, like the Forrest bow). Otherwise, with an item wipe a person could potentially lose a scythe, and have no way to replace it.

[Len]

May I suggest that if you do an item wipe, you exclude all items that are equipped at the time of the wipe? This will keep a *small* number of existing rares in the game, and even with level wipe (which I think should *not* be done) will allow people to recover quickly, rather than having to rebuild from scratch.

Note that items that are currently available via a one-time quest (scythe, short sword) should be made available for purchase from an NPC (at a suitably large price, like the Forrest bow). Otherwise, with an item wipe a person could potentially lose a scythe, and have no way to replace it.

People would just spread out any rare items they have out over 10 accounts

[Platyna]

May I suggest that if you do an item wipe, you exclude all items that are equipped at the time of the wipe? This will keep a *small* number of existing rares in the game, and even with level wipe (which I think should *not* be done) will allow people to recover quickly, rather than having to rebuild from scratch.

Note that items that are currently available via a one-time quest (scythe, short sword) should be made available for purchase from an NPC (at a suitably large price, like the Forrest bow). Otherwise, with an item wipe a person could potentially lose a scythe, and have no way to replace it.

All items will be reintroduced, so in fact you will have a more chance to get a "rare" at all.

And I do not wish for any weeping here, if you think economy is stable state why you think so or resists from posting.

Regards.

[Shaili (a.k.a. tds)]

Personally I think that the economy is stable because many people can buy or sell with difficulty the rare items, for example in Tulimshar there are many players that are selling, but few people that are buying. ^^

[fate]

Hi,

FWIW, I don't mind a clean wipe, as long as it's fair and equal.

Please let me add a couple of points in FAVOUR of a wipe:

• The game has never been `fair and balanced'. (Kind of like Fox News). Think of characters like Lore / Black Don / BibiBlocksberg / evadem who (to the best of my knowledge) levelled up honestly through hard work before the Hatmaker's Dungeon (a.k.a. the Snake Pit) was implemented: the game is now unfair to them, because newcomers (like yours truly) can easily rise to compete with them in a month (that's how long it took me to get to level 90, without using any cheat or exploit other than the widely accepted `fast attack' bug). Frankly, I am amazed and humbled by the fact that none of these long-time players who rose to levels of 80+ in much harder times have expressed outrage at this unfairness.
• Inflation has become an issue and is not reflected by shop prices. (Of course, a wipe is only a temporary solution to that.)
• Starting from the beginning is probably fun for many people, as long as everyone's equal about it. If people get a memento for the wipe (a kleenex or something), they can even feel a bit special.
• A wipe, if widely publicised (!), can attract new players/contributors who might see this as an opportunity.

Here are now some points AGAINST a wipe:

• Player information will be eliminated anyway once the game moves to tmwserv, so why bother now?
• What's there to make sure that such a wipe won't happen again? Have you added more logging to make it easier to find perpetrators, and clarified the non-formally enforced `rules' of the game?
• While I joined fully aware of a wipe coming up during migration, other players may have joined before this information was widely available. Some of those may decide to turn their back on the game. This might even affect contributors.
• A wipe will have a severe impact on the current social structures. Much of the HMC work is based on the idea of more experienced players helping less experienced players.

Despite those latter points, I personally am fine with a wipe, with or without memento, as long as it's fair and equal.

Here are my personal suggestions:

• Either increase logging to find cheaters, or checkpoint your player db regularly so that you can roll back the next time a bug pops up. Rollbacks are certainly annoying, but those amongst the players who don't like the idea of a wipe will likely find a 48h rollback less insulting than a complete wipe.
• If you decide in favour of a wipe: Make sure that the main contributors don't run off as a result of that (by asking in private).
• If you decide in favour of a wipe: Announce early, to everyone, on the main page and in the client update info, and on other sites that might care (e.g., you can attach this to a 0.0.25 client release for happypenguin.org).

As for re-introducing rare items, the current suggestions seem to be quests and rare drop percentages. I won't pretend to have a good answer to that one, but here are some random ideas:

• Introduce some special items (e.g., gems) as rare drops that can be exchanged for special items with a `Stiltzkin' character (a trader who regularly changes locations, is frequently not around at all, and only has a finite supply of items-- perhaps even just three items that you can pick one from before he leaves again). By controlling `Stiltzkin', you can control the distribution of rare items.
• Have a pre-planned string of `special events', during or after which you can get rares, buy rares, or exchange such `gems'.
• Have a rare (!) easter fluffy-like special monster that pops in every now and then and whose drops change frequently.
• Set up a special month-long (or two month-long) coop quest that benefits everyone a little but awards one rare item each to the top X main contributors.

[Len]

[*] Introduce some special items (e.g., gems) as rare drops that can be exchanged for special items with a `Stiltzkin' character (a trader who regularly changes locations, is frequently not around at all, and only has a finite supply of items-- perhaps even just three items that you can pick one from before he leaves again). By controlling `Stiltzkin', you can control the distribution of rare items. It has the same problem that my suggestion has, drop stealing


[*] Have a pre-planned string of `special events', during or after which you can get rares, buy rares, or exchange such `gems'. how does this stop people with multiple accounts
[*] Have a rare (!) easter fluffy-like special monster that pops in every now and then and whose drops change frequently. This is much worse than my suggestion, now drop stealers are going to know when a rare is going to drop
[*] Set up a special month-long (or two month-long) coop quest that benefits everyone a little but awards one rare item each to the top X main contributors. we had a problem with auto pickers during the last event like this so the top contributors are going to be cheaters (and again what stopping is multi loggers from abusing this)

I still say we give all the rare items the same drop rate as blue jeans for a month

[fate]

Hi Len,

[*] Introduce some special items (e.g., gems) as rare drops that can be exchanged for special items with a `Stiltzkin' character (a trader who regularly changes locations, is frequently not around at all, and only has a finite supply of items-- perhaps even just three items that you can pick one from before he leaves again). By controlling `Stiltzkin', you can control the distribution of rare items. It has the same problem that my suggestion has, drop stealing


Fair enough, but: (1) Dropstealing is less of an issue, since you also need to find the Stiltzkin. The idea behind the gems is mostly to ensure that only people who really play have something that they can exchange, and those people generally can tolerate one or two dropsteals. The underlying idea is that after the transition phase you wind up with lots of worthless gems and a few rares, because (2) you as developers have continuous control over what rares you are passing out, and how many of them-- the gems merely make sure that those items are only given away to active players.

[*] Have a pre-planned string of `special events', during or after which you can get rares, buy rares, or exchange such `gems'. how does this stop people with multiple accounts

I don't see how having multiple accounts ties into that at all. If you can multitask in those events between different accounts, you may have a slight advantage in the event, but that is true of any event. My experience in practice indicates that events usually favour one-account players, though.

[*] Have a rare (!) easter fluffy-like special monster that pops in every now and then and whose drops change frequently. This is much worse than my suggestion, now drop stealers are going to know when a rare is going to drop

Yes, that idea of mine wasn't very good.

[*] Set up a special month-long (or two month-long) coop quest that benefits everyone a little but awards one rare item each to the top X main contributors. we had a problem with auto pickers during the last event like this so the top contributors are going to be cheaters (and again what stopping is multi loggers from abusing this)

What's a `multi logger'? (1) People with many accounts obviously only hurt themselves, if that's what you mean. (2) If so, make the top contributors the people who deal most damage to the `quest monsters', instead of awarding by pickup, or choose some other means of contribution to the quest goal (stories that you can later use as backstories, poetry, art... all of those items are not things cheaters are traditionally good at.)

I still say we give all the rare items the same drop rate as blue jeans for a month

Your solution also works, but (a) it gives you very little control over how many rares are handed out, and (b) it is not very exciting. Though I do admit that, from a developer POV, it offers the attractive advantage of requiring almost no work.

[Len]

it gives you very little control over how many rares are handed out, and (.

GM is best which governs least!

[Crush]

I consider such a wipe completely unnecessary. The excess money which is currently in the game can be dealt with through money sinks.

[Platyna]

I said several times Len, that I agree with you about drop rates.

And about "new server comming soon so why bother", we can move the well done economy to different software, no problems, here, it would be even better to do that, and have something to start with.

But at least you have a cookie, fate, for a meritorical post.

Regards.

[Sertraline]

I consider such a wipe completely unnecessary. The excess money which is currently in the game can be dealt with through money sinks.

I agree. Furthermore, I put many hours of work into getting everything I have: all my money and items, as well as my level.

- Would it make any difference when old quests will be re-implemented, so you could get in a honest way rare items (like in these times you could abuse a bug and do one quest all over again)?

Of course not. You cannot compensate me for the time I have already spent doing these things and getting these items.

It seems like a good way to drive away players and developers
But if you feel you need to do it, go for it

Len is absolutely right. I would seriously consider leaving for good, and perhaps setting up a TMW fork for anyone who shares my sentiments.

[Superkoop]

I consider such a wipe completely unnecessary. The excess money which is currently in the game can be dealt with through money sinks.

+1000

A complete wipe (levels, money, items, all of it) at this point seems pointless, and unfair. There will be a complete wipe with the new TMWserv anyhow, so two wipes will only piss people off twice as much. The TMWserv wipe will be justified by making the game really better, this wipe would only make people upset without really adding much to the game.

The best solution IMO, would be to add better logging to catch the cheaters in the future, and money sinks for present situations.

[fate]

Hi everyone,

I would expect Sert's opinion to be typical of other players who have stuck with and heavily invested in this game (emotionally and time-wise) for an extended period of time.

I consider such a wipe completely unnecessary. The excess money which is currently in the game can be dealt with through money sinks.

I agree. Furthermore, I put many hours of work into getting everything I have: all my money and items, as well as my level.

This seems to be the main point of contention, and it's a deep one. Let me spin it a little: who is the owner of these `virtual items'? Does the TMW development team have a `right' to take everything (or indeed anything!) away?

Really, the open question is what the things are that players can expect from the TMW developers/admins. I personally have always followed the belief that I have no guarantees in this game and that anything can happen, but clearly some other players are unhappy with that view, and I can't deny that I have some sympathy for such a position.

No matter what choice you make in the current case, some people will be angry: either the cheaters will go unpunished, or the `good' players will be punished unfairly. Irrespectively of your concrete decision, I'd suggest that you set up a general policy that governs what you will do to the server, and make sure that everyone who plays the game knows about that policy (the policy might be `we give no guarantees about anything and may change the game in any way we wish at any time, including but not limited to deleting everything', or it might be `we reserve the right to punish in any way we see fit players who exploit bugs that we have listed at http://X or http://Y whenever we have concrete evidence of such cheating', or something completely different).

Once you have such a policy, no-one can complain that your actions are unfair, since they had every opportunity to review the policy. In fact, it might be easiest to make up such a policy before you make the decision, so that you don't wind up in the embarrassing situation of devising a policy that contradicts your most recent decision.

(Side note: this notion is very much akin to the idea of a minimal `constitution' for a former totalitarian state, with many of the same possibilities, hopes, fears, strengths, and weaknesses. Now, a game is not a state, but it shares many of the same properties-- except that people who are fed up will just leave, rather than guilloutining their leaders. But as Sert pointed out, both have the option of declaring independence.)