The end of the Feluccian Shops: Impossible to sell insured items on vendors !

[Dreadlord Galaad]

After nearly 1 year break, Ive started to play uo again1 month ago.
Unfortunately, it comes to be a rude awakening for me. I used to run a nice little shop, selling pvp gears on felucca. A few days ago, I tried to open it it again but I couldn't stock my vendors .
Some very intelligent people had the good idea to add this "Players can no longer place insured items on a player-run vendor. (Existing insured items on vendors will not be affected.)" on publish 51 !

What is the future of all the feluccian shops??

The only way to explain the changes is that some people could find a bug with insured items and player vendors.
So, if its to solve a possible bug, is it a temporary solution???
If its not to solve a bug, why did dev do that?!?



Ps: I will NEVER sell items to trammies !

 

[the 4th man]

well mr fella......try uninsuring them. makes sense, no?
btw, fella shops never were a big thing.

 

[Lord Kynd]

really, what is the big issue here ?
it cost's you to insure the item the first time.
now you save some change....

person buys item they can insure it right away..

if reds or pk's around unlikly you are going to stop n shop anyhow...

it really isn't that hard to un-insure things...
to bad we don't get our gold back when we do

 

[Dreadlord Galaad]

Just answer to that question :
If you have the cash, and if you need the item. Are you going to buy a 4-5M value armor part uninsured??

 

[Lord Kynd]

for the record..

Felucia would be the last place i would go to shop.

 

[Zym Dragon]

Just answer to that question :
If you have the cash, and if you need the item. Are you going to buy a 4-5M value armor part uninsured??

The problem is that if the item is not insured by the person wearing it, there's a chance for that item to stay on on the corpse. That's why this change was put in.

 

[Aibal]

Ps: I will NEVER sell items to trammies !

LMFAO. Doesn't look like you'll be selling to Fellucians either.

 

[Dreadlord Galaad]

The problem is that if the item is not insured by the person wearing it, there's a chance for that item to stay on on the corpse. That's why this change was put in.

Thats very interesting ! and I guess its something that will NEVER be solved :'(

Tell me Zym Dragon, do you know if its account related or character related?
Because sometimes I use the same item with 2 different characters, or I make an armor part with my artisan and I insure it to use it with another character :S
Should I uninsure them and reinsure them each time??

 

[BartofCats]

yeah the risk vs reward thing again... i guess it wont matter what you sell its up to the people if they want to buy it or not. Sure your items might not sell as fast but dont think they wont sell at all.

 

[Wenchkin]

After nearly 1 year break, Ive started to play uo again1 month ago.
Unfortunately, it comes to be a rude awakening for me. I used to run a nice little shop, selling pvp gears on felucca. A few days ago, I tried to open it it again but I couldn't stock my vendors .
Some very intelligent people had the good idea to add this "Players can no longer place insured items on a player-run vendor. (Existing insured items on vendors will not be affected.)" on publish 51 !

What is the future of all the feluccian shops??

The only way to explain the changes is that some people could find a bug with insured items and player vendors.
So, if its to solve a possible bug, is it a temporary solution???
If its not to solve a bug, why did dev do that?!?

It was changed because some instances of the insurance bug were apparently caused by a player buying insured kit then dying.

The sky hasn't fallen on your shop or anyone else's with this change. I never insured items before sale and I've always sold really well. Items like powerscrolls can't be insured anyway. Again that hasn't deterred any customers. Fixing the insurance bug is a priority IMO, just stock your shop as before

Ps: I will NEVER sell items to trammies !

With that attitude your shop is never going to do well. Mark runes and drop them around Tram and Fel, treat customers with respect, and with time you'll have a successful shop. Gold is gold, regardless of where it comes from. Some Tram players may decide to move to Fel, and the more they're encouraged the more will come. So unless you want Fel all to yourself, it's sensible to drop runes everywhere and encourage players to visit Fel.

Wenchy

 

[Dermott of LS]

...

Ps: I will NEVER sell items to trammies !

Good luck with that.

 

[Dreadlord Galaad]

...

Ps: I will NEVER sell items to trammies !

Good luck with that.

A true trammie never go on felucca. For example, if he see a red gate, he immediately recall to his house, and log out too scared that something would push him into that red gate! Another example, when a trammie heard someone talking about felucca, he had to count down to 1000 not get a panic attack ! There are tons of other examples showing how trammies will NEVER put a foot in felucca. Thats why, I will never sell items to trammies as my shop is on felucca !

 

[Dermott of LS]

...

Your description is in a word: Laughable.

 

[AirmidCecht]

A true trammie never go on felucca. For example, if he see a red gate, he immediately recall to his house, and log out too scared that something would push him into that red gate! Another example, when a trammie heard someone talking about felucca, he had to count down to 1000 not get a panic attack ! There are tons of other examples showing how trammies will NEVER put a foot in felucca. Thats why, I will never sell items to trammies as my shop is on felucca !

While your candor and love for all things trammie is evident here, rolleyes: I do understand your frustration. This was discussed at length when the change was first put in over a month ago so you would have missed it, sorry. The risk of losing an insured item was deemed greater after buying it off a vendor than doing your shopping in fel. It may hurt vendors such as yourself but unless you are in high traffic area for reds I would still offer your services. Good luck to you!

 

[Galad]

You re-registered and still spelled your name wrong.

 

[Setnaffa]

A true trammie never go on felucca. For example, if he see a red gate, he immediately recall to his house, and log out too scared that something would push him into that red gate! Another example, when a trammie heard someone talking about felucca, he had to count down to 1000 not get a panic attack ! There are tons of other examples showing how trammies will NEVER put a foot in felucca. Thats why, I will never sell items to trammies as my shop is on felucca !

I play mostly in Felucca and I wouldn't step through any unknown red gate or randomly click on any Fel Rune that was just lying around. Much of the time, you'll be walking into a trap.

Again, I play in Fel, but I shop in Trammel. My Fel house is private and will stay that way.

 

[Dermott of LS]

...

I play in Trammel, but mostly have been mining in Felucca (why not, Cove and West Britain I've yet to have a problem with).

If I see a Red gate, I ignore it, if I hear "true Feluccans" who somehow seems to always end up in Trammel to smacktalk while IN the facet they hate so much, I ignore them.

Poor misspelled Galaad doesn't even know what facet the people who may buy from him play on... he could have been selling to Luna shops looking to buy and price gouge this whole time.

The disdain from people like Galaad is cute though... like a little yappy dog trying to intimidate a rottweiller. [tongue] (too far?)

 

[Emil IsTemp]

When it comes down to it; the only real threat of going to Fel is your client crashing..

I have never had any problem selling things nor being PKed outside of hotspots.

Granted, there is a much larger populace on the golden curser side of things, and people willing to pay more.. but if your looking for a break from LunFlation, it might be worth that venture into Fel, out into the jungle in search of the rumored trade caravan.

 

[Joyous2K]

Have there always been two Galads? Love the Dreadlord Galaad's description of trammies. The red gate is ominous to be sure. Try selling something that no one cares about losing, like trinsic petals or repair deeds. You will be rolling in loot in no time.

 

[DrDolittle]

It was changed because some instances of the insurance bug were apparently caused by a player buying insured kit then dying.

When they announced the change I did some testing and found that, on the initial death, insurance did work for an item insured by another player. The true issue was that an item insured by another player did not automatically re-insure for its new owner.

In typical EA make-a-change-that-does-not-fix-the-real-problem style, they merely removed the ability to place an insured item on a vendor. This change does absolutely nothing to fix the re-insurance bug in a situation where an insured item transfers between players in some other manner but it does make it appear that they are “doing something” to fix the insurance bug.

 

[Pickaxe Pete]

Before this change I bought a 100 million bulk artie deal off a guy's vendor in fel. He and his 5 best buddies were watching me quite closely. I bought with reasonable confidence because everything was insured. Now, I would have to be certifiably insane to do this.

Just an example of how the change can affect buyers and sellers.

 

[Lord Drakelord]

Been several Felucca shop that I quit going to, on Sonoma, because of the Insurance thing, they cannot insure the item and the places are well know hangouts for reds, so why should I shop there any more. Its not worth the risk to get a deal.

 

[aarons6]

you have no idea how much i love this change..

i am a trammie but i have a true fell char
he is 120 thief, 120 stealth, 100 hiding whoo hooo..
so i see these runes around, cheap vendors (felucca) i jump on them, i hide.. if there is good deals.. i wait.. someone comes by.. i snoop.. i wait.. he buys.. i steal.. THANK YOU EA

 

[Connor_Graham]

"The true issue was that an item insured by another player did not automatically re-insure for its new owner."

Which, if a player is killed after buying something from a Fel vendor, could mean the item is sitting on the corpse, whether immediately after buying it or at a later time.

The fix did exactly what it was intended to, which was to prevent this from happening by forcing the person that buys an item to insure it themselves.


"This change does absolutely nothing to fix the re-insurance bug in a situation where an insured item transfers between players in some other manner"

They've already stated they're working on other factors of the bug, but put this fix in immediately since they found it. It wouldn't make sense NOT to put this in as soon as it was identified.

 

[DrDolittle]

Which, if a player is killed after buying something from a Fel vendor, could mean the item is sitting on the corpse, whether immediately after buying it or at a later time.

If the player is killed immediately after purchasing an insured item from a vendor, as might happen in felucca, then that item will be in the player’s pack upon resurrection just as if the player had insured the item. Further the item can not be immediately stolen from the customer.

The fix did exactly what it was intended to, which was to prevent this from happening by forcing the person that buys an item to insure it themselves.

They've already stated they're working on other factors of the bug, but put this fix in immediately since they found it. It wouldn't make sense NOT to put this in as soon as it was identified.

This change does not actually improve the lot of the vendor customer. If insurance was not prohibited from vendors then the buyer would have at least have one death where the item would be insured and the item could not be stolen. Barring insured items from vendors takes even that safety net away. Items purchased or transferred via a trade window are still subject to the re-insurance bug. So, the way I see it, the change did not actually help the situation and it would make more sense to invest the programming effort in fixing the core re-insurance problem than in a stop-gap measure which actually makes matters worse.

 

[Dermott of LS]

...

If any shopkeeper is really affected by the no-insurance for sale change, the problem is with the way they run their shop, or the way they fail to police their own shop.

If your customers do not feel safe in buying stuff from you, they're not going to buy stuff from you.

And "It's the way Felucca is" may be nice and all as a retort, but it doesn't put the gold in your bank account... does it?

Conclusion, if you want a shop in Felucca to succeed, you have to be able to protect your customers... otherwise, they'll find it easier to buy elsewhere where theft or loss on death isn't an issue.

*shrug*

 

[Duncan McDermott]

Just answer to that question :
If you have the cash, and if you need the item. Are you going to buy a 4-5M value armor part uninsured??

I am guessing you haven't played Siege? Our vendors do very well here without any insured items.

 

[Connor_Graham]

"then that item will be in the player’s pack upon resurrection just as if the player had insured the item."

Not necessarily. It would be subject to the exact same instance as if that player died an hour later unless they insure it themselves, which this change now forces. It wouldn't matter if they died 2 seconds or 2 hours after the purchase, the results would be the same.

"If insurance was not prohibited from vendors then the buyer would have at least have one death where the item would be insured and the item could not be stolen."

If they did not insure it themselves, then this is not true. It's no different than buying something that had already been insured, equpping it, then getting killed. It would be on their corpse either way if they got hit with the bug.


"Items purchased or transferred via a trade window are still subject to the re-insurance bug."

True, and the fix for this would be to simply disallow any trades of insured items I would think, just like they did with vendor purchases.


"the way I see it, the change did not actually help the situation"

Sure it did. It stopped one portion of the insurance bug from happening in the future since players are now forced to insure the items themselves.


"it would make more sense to invest the programming effort in fixing the core re-insurance problem"

Not if the problem is actually caused by several different sets of circumstances, which seems to be the case.



"stop-gap measure which actually makes matters worse"

I don't see how it's worse, and not better, since part of the insurance bug has now been identified and measures put in place to stop at least this portion of it from perpetuating.