Great job on the tmap randomization ...

[Lord Chaos]

There is already a system in place that checks for the existence of a house: The Recall system. It validates the coordinates of your destination, and if it's inside a house, including a castle courtyard, it negates your ability to recall.

Though funny enough, you can recall into the side areas of a Keep.

 

[popps]

When we implemented the treasure map randomization, we knew we wouldn't be able to make it so every chest would be in a diggable spot at launch. We will continue to work on the algorithm and hopefully it will get better through iteration. For now just hang onto those maps for 30 days and you will be able to decode them again.

As far as I am concerned, I personally agree with that decision (but I still have my gripes about excluding the ML ingredients and the fact that magic items are still referred to as junk by players...).

If after 30 days old decoded Maps will be decodable again and, therefore, the location problem fixed, the only annoyance will be to have to wait 30 days before digging those Maps.

For now undecoded Maps seem to locate fine, I seem to understand.

I would imagine that fixing the already decoded Maps could have taken much time and perhaps, spending that time on something that self-fixes in 30 days might not be the Best thing for UO when it can be used instead for other things which also need to be looked at.

Anyways, that's how I see it.

 

[aoLOLita]

"...btw, 3rd tmap was under a tree so couldn't dig that one either ..."


Makes note to self: Add GM Lumberjack to my THunter template ...


Seriously, a few bugged maps, move on to the others. Stash the bugged ones to be fixed at a later date...

UO by its very nature is not a static game, day-to-day gameplay is the ultimate Quality Control check on new content - or old. A bug free Publish would be nice, but I myself would rather enjoy the 90+ % bug free content than wait a year for Devs to ensure a forthcoming Publish is virtually bug free...

rolleyes:Just my two cents worth - Hey, wait - gimme back my change???

 

[G.v.P]

I suck at finding maps (tile by tile with pick). I only have 51 mining though, but still, even if I had 100, I remember now why I never tried Cart in the first place. I found two LvL 1s then tried for a LvL 2 and totally got stumped . I'm sure someone has mentioned this already, but I got a Skeleton Key off a LvL 1 (10 charges).

 

[Beer_Cayse]

Since 1973 I have been in the IT arena in all sorts of positions. I *never* once allowed something to leave my desk or project that I knew was not the best it could be. I have gone toe-to-toe with Management all the way to Directors and won.

I advocate for the customer all the time ... even though I am IT. Maybe the UO team should REALLY started thinking "would I be happy or pissed if I let this out in this condition? Especially since I know another week of testing will make it xx% better"

 

[nynyve]

When we implemented the treasure map randomization, we knew we wouldn't be able to make it so every chest would be in a diggable spot at launch. We will continue to work on the algorithm and hopefully it will get better through iteration. For now just hang onto those maps for 30 days and you will be able to decode them again.

But why did you change the Tmap location system in the first place? It wasn't broken. The loot sure needed fixing, not the locations of the maps.

Points to bugs that still haven't been fixed.

 

[RavenWinterHawk]

SOME should be useless.

They are old treasure maps that were for treasure buried a long time ago.

Maybe a house was build, the lands shifted or and island sank.

Whose to say what happened.

Big deal.

 

[NuSair]

I'd just change it so that chest that were on the water have to be fished up.

 

[Viper09]

I like the idea of complete randomization. Could they just code it though for the chests under trees to just pop up in the closest open spot next to it though?

 

[Kiminality]

But why did you change the Tmap location system in the first place? It wasn't broken. The loot sure needed fixing, not the locations of the maps.

Points to bugs that still haven't been fixed.

Because there wasn't much "hunting" involved in "Treasure Hunting".

 

[Picus at the office]

There is already a system in place that checks for the existence of a house: The Recall system. It validates the coordinates of your destination, and if it's inside a house, including a castle courtyard, it negates your ability to recall.

So, you take said system, adapt it for treasure maps to validate whether the map point is a valid map point. If it's not, just re-roll the map point until it comes up with one that is valid. Problem solved.

There's nothing surprising or difficult about this expectation.

As for checking vs. water or impassable tiles, yeah... that's got to be a pretty easy check since the server already must know whether a tile is water (ie: fishable, sailable) or impassable (ie: you can't stand here).

I mean, it's 2010 on a 13 year old game. Not exactly rocket science.

I never really thought about the recall system but you are totally correct. I believe there is a small bug with marking a run prior to placing a castle so you can still recall into your court yard but other wise this would have worked.

I still think this was a fix that was not needed. I'm not looking forward to having to track down spots if I bother to do any after my current map holdins run out.

 

[sablestorm]

At this moment, my guildmates and alliance mates are breaking out their T-Hunters and having fun searching for new maps. Yes, some of the maps don't work, but it beats the alternative of not having this new content to do. The bug is not show stopping and there's plenty of enjoyment to be had unless of course you'd rather come here and spend your time complaining.

 

[RaDian FlGith]

But why did you change the Tmap location system in the first place? It wasn't broken. The loot sure needed fixing, not the locations of the maps.

Well, from where I sit, the addition of other facets to the system is a boon to it.

What boggles my mind is that they KNEW it was going to be released in this fashion, decided to go ahead anyway, and yet there are clearly identifiable ways to have prevented the bugs in the first place.

I'm okay with things being released buggy when the bugs are unintentional -- I understand that bugs come out in the weirdest of ways. What I'm not okay with is someone making a decision to release something that they already know will need to be fixed. The release now, patch later system is a sign of extreme laziness and poor, poor customer appreciation.

I agree with the other poster above who suggested that maybe Bioware Mythic needs to ask themselves, "Would I be okay with this, as a customer, if I had to play it." If the answer is even remotely "no," fix it rather than release it.

It's sort of like selling a hot car -- it's great, but you can't lock its doors. We'll fix the door locks later.

 

[Lord Chaos]

If they didn't release it, then people would be complaining about them not releasing it already.

But making the locations truly random was not the best move, they should just have made new locations in the other lands and not made them random like that.

 

[RaDian FlGith]

If they didn't release it, then people would be complaining about them not releasing it already.

Okay, but which is the worst PR incident of the two? Things are delayed all the time. If it had been delayed another couple of weeks, sure, people would have been impatient. However, if the system released had been in a much better state, people would be far happier than they are at the moment with the shoddy release of a system that was already delayed.

But making the locations truly random was not the best move, they should just have made new locations in the other lands and not made them random like that.

Actually, I completely disagree. I think making them completely random brings the hunt back to treasure hunting. The hunt was gone since all of the locations were all mapped out, and all you had to do was identify your map, recall, and voila, dig, it's yours.

No, randomization was a good idea. Poorly implemented. And yet, so easily fixed.

 

[canary]

No, randomization was a good idea. Poorly implemented. And yet, so easily fixed.

I do hope that you receive a 'thank you' PM from Supreem over this.

 

[deadite]

SOME should be useless.

They are old treasure maps that were for treasure buried a long time ago.

Maybe a house was build, the lands shifted or and island sank.

Whose to say what happened.

Big deal.

I like this. Makes perfect sense to me.

 

[Willard]

and the second one was under a house ... so far so good ...

(these were maps obtained "after" the patch this afternoon - the prepatch ones still work)

No worries.....in the next patch a new skill will be introduced--Scuba Diving!

 

[Willard]

Eh, give em a break. The whole team (all 5 of em) are working hard on a shoestring budget.


I've done a few maps so far.... Loot is better and more interesting however I still hate the 50 useless items in the chest. Too much junk and most really low propeeties. Like Mongbat loot and this is from Level 5 chests.

Why can't the Lvl 5 chests be more like paragon chests? 5-8 items and chance at something decent?

Oh well, at least the Alacrity scrolls and imbue stuff is useful.

Give them a break? Really?? I have been playing for close to 10 years at 12.99 a month--that is a lot of money...times how many players (not to mention multiple accounts and $ for new releases and UO store purchases)--I can't believe that they can't afford to implement a product that works. If I my Internet or cable TV only worked 75% of the time I would be pissed and on the phone with customer service--why should it be any different with EAMythic?

 

[deadite]

Might as well call your cable company and complain because I bet that you are paying for a bunch of channels you never watch. And some of them don't even broadcast 24/7. You should totally get a refund for that!

 

[RaDian FlGith]

Might as well call your cable company and complain because I bet that you are paying for a bunch of channels you never watch. And some of them don't even broadcast 24/7. You should totally get a refund for that!

That's a silly analogy. But we'll go with it. If you consider UO = Cable Television, then consider the different skills/aspects of the game as the different "channels" of UO.

Now, lets say you subscribe to cable for Sci-Fi, BBC America, and G4. And on those three channels, they drop out for five minutes every hour, and the cable company's response is, "Oh, we're aware of that issue... we'll fix it in about six months. We figured you'd enjoy watching 91% of the channel each hour than none of the channel at all."

I mean... seriously?

I'm completely not okay with the Dev Team releasing shoddy material ON PURPOSE.

 

[deadite]

That's a silly analogy. But we'll go with it. If you consider UO = Cable Television, then consider the different skills/aspects of the game as the different "channels" of UO.

Now, lets say you subscribe to cable for Sci-Fi, BBC America, and G4. And on those three channels, they drop out for five minutes every hour, and the cable company's response is, "Oh, we're aware of that issue... we'll fix it in about six months. We figured you'd enjoy watching 91% of the channel each hour than none of the channel at all."

I mean... seriously?

I'm completely not okay with the Dev Team releasing shoddy material ON PURPOSE.

Wasn't my analogy. He said if his cable or internet was down 75% of the time he would complain. I'd say UO is playable for much more than 75% of the time. We're talking about one new feature in a game with so many features and options it's hard to even make a list.

Sure, it sucks that sometimes you get treasure sites in the middle of the ocean. Supreem said they would continue tweaking it. That's what you are going to get whether you like it or not.

If you don't like your service, change providers.

Anyway, I'm done. Good luck with your crusade and let me know how that works out for ya, okay?

 

[canary]

If you don't like your service, change providers.

UO is not currently in a safe enough position where they can provide intentional crap service.

You might not be aware of it, but I know just between four peoples' UO accounts on stratics who have been recently stated their dissatisfaction with the game it totals nearly forty accounts. For the record, I'm not in that four (I have 2 active).

True story. It is people like that who I do not think you really want to upset with lackluster service.

 

[deadite]

Then those people *should* quit. It's not their responsibility to stay subbed to this game just because "Mythic really needs the accounts". Honestly.

What do you think would make a louder point to Mythic: a thread on Uhall, or a hit in subscription numbers?

Anyway, the day that Mythic starts catering to those who have multiple accounts is a sad day for the rest of the playerbase.

EDIT: And please note that I have never once defended the fact that Mythic released a buggy feature. Sure, it's a problem. But like so many other problems around here, they tend to get blown all out of proportion.

 

[RaDian FlGith]

Anyway, I'm done. Good luck with your crusade and let me know how that works out for ya, okay?

Yes, yes, expecting a quality product, and quality performance from a quality team that's up to par with at least a minimum standard.

What a horrific crusade I'm on.

 

[The Zog historian]

Wasn't my analogy. He said if his cable or internet was down 75% of the time he would complain. I'd say UO is playable for much more than 75% of the time.

That's the first analogy, but you made your own bad one. Now, my cable company has been threatened enough by competitors that if a channel has crapped out, they'll offer a pro-rated refund for the day. Their customer service has much, much improved in the 10 years I've been with them. Let me pre-empt here, since you're probably thinking that you'll accuse me of advocating EA giving pro-rated refunds, but I'm not saying that at all.

Let's make the analogy accurate. There's an old non-broadcast channel that initially sparked a large following, but the content wasn't interesting enough to keep much of a base. It fell to near the bottom out of dozens of total channels, but it was kept around since the marginal cost of its upkeep was zero. Now it's been revamped with, say, interactive features, and the changes from the time they were announced engendered much interest and excitement. However, the signal will occasionally blank out when you want to watch a particular show. Worse, not only did the technical staff know about their poor design, they went ahead with their plans in the hope no one would really notice. The solution: they're hoping more usage will weed things out, and players should wait 30 days for a modulation change that will rerun older shows but do NOTHING to fix newer ones. In the meantime people can...go watch something else. That isn't even what the developers are saying -- that what YOU are saying: "Well we can play some other part of the game."

We're talking about one new feature in a game with so many features and options it's hard to even make a list.

We're not talking about an insignificant addition of content. This was announced several months ago, and not only is it inexcusable for the developers to (as opposed to the tradition of having the player base do it), they KNEW about this and yet released the crap code.

Skill locks (let alone stat locks) weren't implemented until 1999, and they were a highly anticipated improvement. But what if those had a chance, no matter how small, of not working? Oops, there went your GM magery, because you used a certain skill that was locked below GM, and the lock didn't work that time. By your logic, we should just use other skills, because that particular one is one of just soooooo many in the game.

In my professional life, I'm dealing with idiots much like EA's developers, people who just don't care about the crap code they're putting out. In four years, not having touched a line of their code, I've had to come up with more workarounds than I can count. They're not bothering to THINK things through even from the conceptual stage. One actually said that they couldn't migrate certain information from the old database to the new, because it would take a whole TWO days for them to revamp and test their script.

Don't you think it would have been better had the published been delayed for no more than a day, so some junior programmer could write code to test for an inaccessible chest? Or are you willing to accept the excuses for bad programming?

The existing one for recalling wouldn't work in all cases, because someone could decode a map, leave it around, and then dig it up later after someone placed a house. But a basic test like the recall spell has would have been light years ahead of the fiascos we've seen.

What's going to happen, every map will become tattered again after 30 days? Is that the future of the "iteration" nonsense?

Give them a break? Really?? I have been playing for close to 10 years at 12.99 a month--that is a lot of money...times how many players (not to mention multiple accounts and $ for new releases and UO store purchases)--I can't believe that they can't afford to implement a product that works.

You wanted to focus on just the second part of what Willard wrote, but not what you couldn't refute: "a product that works."

Sure, it sucks that sometimes you get treasure sites in the middle of the ocean. Supreem said they would continue tweaking it. That's what you are going to get whether you like it or not.

You might be satisfied with absurdly low levels of service. Others are not.

If you don't like your service, change providers.

Then those people *should* quit. It's not their responsibility to stay subbed to this game just because "Mythic really needs the accounts". Honestly.

What "responsibility"? Who ever said or advocated staying 'because "Mythic really needs the accounts"'? What an absurd strawman.

You should carefully reconsider your position that these players "should" quit. Be careful what you advocate when it's these players with several accounts who are sustaining the revenues. These aren't the old days when one player might quit out of frustration with PKs, but his account was just one out of a hundred thousand, or a player around AoS' release might have two or three accounts out of 250,000. I have seven, myself, which isn't that unusual. I was just talking with a fellow who has a couple dozen with his daughter. Their small guild as a whole has 70. If they quit and went to WoW, that's a loss of fees that would have paid for a quarter of a mid-rage programmer's salary.

"If I leave town, town leaves with me."

EDIT: And please note that I have never once defended the fact that Mythic released a buggy feature. Sure, it's a problem. But like so many other problems around here, they tend to get blown all out of proportion.

You may not have "defended" it, but you're quite complacent and accepting of it, and derisive of anyone who demands competent programming.

 

[Stupid Miner]

There is already a system in place that checks for the existence of a house: The Recall system. It validates the coordinates of your destination, and if it's inside a house, including a castle courtyard, it negates your ability to recall.

The Teleport spell can't be cast in a house or a ~4 tile radius around the house. Would give even more breathing room. Doubt any homeowner wants 3 AWs waiting on their steps. Er, actually I wouldn't mind personally, but most people would.

Also, don't unintentionally equivocate the "released it anyway" statement.
It's unlikely they knew that the situation was this bad; they probably didn't realize the magnitude of the bug. Seems more likely they figured it'd affect a smallish percentage which wouldn't be a big deal.

So... they weren't as much willfully negligent, as they were just plain incompetent.
(could probably pull off "not guilty by reason of insanity" too, wouldn't be a huge stretch)

 

[Sarsmi]

To be fair quite a lot of content, publishes etc are released with known bugs. There can be time issues, and even though the testers do their jobs we'll still get buggy content. What isn't typical about this is admitting it. Which is unfortunate, since I'd prefer honesty over these things than not.

So maybe cut Supreem some slack, I'd rather he not feel like he can't share this info with us. It's really not fair to pick on him personally over something that is pretty standard (releasing buggy content).

 

[canary]

To be fair quite a lot of content, publishes etc are released with known bugs. There can be time issues, and even though the testers do their jobs we'll still get buggy content. What isn't typical about this is admitting it. Which is unfortunate, since I'd prefer honesty over these things than not.

So maybe cut Supreem some slack, I'd rather he not feel like he can't share this info with us. It's really not fair to pick on him personally over something that is pretty standard (releasing buggy content).

You know what would have been more awesome?

Them stating 'We have this system, but we are attempting to overcome this hurdle' and, you know, then release it when it was ready.

 

[canary]

You may not have "defended" it, but you're quite complacent and accepting of it, and derisive of anyone who demands competent programming.

I do not know who you are, but I agree with your post 100% and am quite sure I'm in love with you.

 

[Apetul]

Too much lazyness on the devs.. most dupes are created just because they re-use existing items and they just rename, rehue them instead of create a new one from scratch.

On the TMaps, using the recall system to check if a spot could be accesed to have a treasure is way too simple. But they found another simpler and -lazy- solution: dont do any check at all.

 

[RaDian FlGith]

To be fair quite a lot of content, publishes etc are released with known bugs. There can be time issues, and even though the testers do their jobs we'll still get buggy content. What isn't typical about this is admitting it. Which is unfortunate, since I'd prefer honesty over these things than not.

But that's really the sticking issue, isn't it? I mean, yes, "quite a lot of content, publishes etc are released with known bugs." If the bugs are known at time of release, then fixing those bugs before release should be paramount. The design process should not be: (1) Document, (2) Prototype, (3) Test, (4) Refine, (5) Realize There's a Bug, (6) Release, (7) Publish, (8) Fix Bug, (9) Test, (10) Release Again...

But rather: (1) Document, (2) Prototype, (3) Test, (4) Refine, (5) Find Bug, (6) Fix Bug, (7) Test, (8) Refine, (9) Publish, (10) if unexpected bugs crop up, go through the fixing process.

To release a known bug in a system makes absolutely, positively no sense at all. I don't care if it means they miss their targeted release date by a week, if you find a bug in the system, and you know it's there, you don't say, "Release it anyway, we'll fix it later!"

Now, I admit, Origin, EA Austin, EARS, Mythic, EA Mythic, Mythic, and Bioware Mythic all have this strange precedence of doing just that, but just because it's how they CHOOSE to release things doesn't mean that they SHOULD choose to do so.

And no, being honest about it doesn't make me feel better. In fact, this is the one case where I sort of wish they'd lied to me and said, "Oh crap, we didn't think that would happen, we'll fix it soon!" Because releasing something with a bug like that just screams to me about the lack of value they place on the test/release process.

So maybe cut Supreem some slack, I'd rather he not feel like he can't share this info with us. It's really not fair to pick on him personally over something that is pretty standard (releasing buggy content).

Uh... no, I'm not going to cut Supreem some slack over this. I'd prefer he didn't share stuff like that with us, because while you suggest that this is a "standard practice," if I had used this as "standard practice" in the years I spent designing an internal, corporate system that handled orders and inventory and training and a bunch of other stuff too, boy, I tell you, I'd have lost my job with the first release.

I completely understand that bugs happen. The old programmers' joke that "Hello World" is the only bug-free program isn't far from the truth. But a responsible programmer doesn't go to his boss and say, "I know the system I'm implementing isn't working as intended... can we release it anyway?" and a responsible boss doesn't say, "Yes."

Bug squashing after publish is meant for UNINTENDED, UNEXPECTED, and UNKNOWN bugs. If you know about the bug, you better fix it before release.

 

[Sarsmi]

But that's really the sticking issue, isn't it? I mean, yes, "quite a lot of content, publishes etc are released with known bugs." If the bugs are known at time of release, then fixing those bugs before release should be paramount. The design process should not be: (1) Document, (2) Prototype, (3) Test, (4) Refine, (5) Realize There's a Bug, (6) Release, (7) Publish, (8) Fix Bug, (9) Test, (10) Release Again...

But rather: (1) Document, (2) Prototype, (3) Test, (4) Refine, (5) Find Bug, (6) Fix Bug, (7) Test, (8) Refine, (9) Publish, (10) if unexpected bugs crop up, go through the fixing process.

To release a known bug in a system makes absolutely, positively no sense at all. I don't care if it means they miss their targeted release date by a week, if you find a bug in the system, and you know it's there, you don't say, "Release it anyway, we'll fix it later!"

Now, I admit, Origin, EA Austin, EARS, Mythic, EA Mythic, Mythic, and Bioware Mythic all have this strange precedence of doing just that, but just because it's how they CHOOSE to release things doesn't mean that they SHOULD choose to do so.

And no, being honest about it doesn't make me feel better. In fact, this is the one case where I sort of wish they'd lied to me and said, "Oh crap, we didn't think that would happen, we'll fix it soon!" Because releasing something with a bug like that just screams to me about the lack of value they place on the test/release process.

Uh... no, I'm not going to cut Supreem some slack over this. I'd prefer he didn't share stuff like that with us, because while you suggest that this is a "standard practice," if I had used this as "standard practice" in the years I spent designing an internal, corporate system that handled orders and inventory and training and a bunch of other stuff too, boy, I tell you, I'd have lost my job with the first release.

I completely understand that bugs happen. The old programmers' joke that "Hello World" is the only bug-free program isn't far from the truth. But a responsible programmer doesn't go to his boss and say, "I know the system I'm implementing isn't working as intended... can we release it anyway?" and a responsible boss doesn't say, "Yes."

Bug squashing after publish is meant for UNINTENDED, UNEXPECTED, and UNKNOWN bugs. If you know about the bug, you better fix it before release.

I guess I'd prefer honesty. Sure I'd prefer if they didn't knowingly release buggy content as well. But I'm not going to get upset about it. Quite possibly they wanted more testing information than they were getting from having the publish just released on origin, hence why it was released in imperfect condition? There may well be reasons for the way they did it, but ya'll just want to grab the baseball bats and get to work.

Well enjoy. And when devs stop coming here and sharing this kind of info with us, look to yourselves to blame.

 

[RaDian FlGith]

I guess I'd prefer honesty. Sure I'd prefer if they didn't knowingly release buggy content as well. But I'm not going to get upset about it. Quite possibly they wanted more testing information than they were getting from having the publish just released on origin, hence why it was released in imperfect condition? There may well be reasons for the way they did it, but ya'll just want to grab the baseball bats and get to work.

Seriously, put down the pompoms. I'm not running around with a baseball bat, but I am saying it is unacceptable to release it with known issues.

What more information could they have gleaned from testing. They already knew that treasure maps were spawning in bad locations. Would testing have changed that information? Did they need someone else to confirm for them that they were, indeed, in bad locations? I mean, seriously, what could they have gleaned from testing this particular issue that they didn't already know?

Sure... I suppose someone -- like me -- could have shown them how to design a solution for the issue. And if that's the case, I'll take my royalty check and a cozy desk in Virginia, because I guarantee you that I wouldn't have let the system out the door knowing it was functioning like it is.

Well enjoy. And when devs stop coming here and sharing this kind of info with us, look to yourselves to blame.

Oh dear god, seriously? This is why I seriously dislike the Apologists. WHY are you OKAY with them releasing content in this state? What, exactly, exactly is it that makes it okay for them to do this, but not, say, a Chinese company to release toys with lead paint in them? I mean, sure, the Chinese company knew there was lead paint in them, but they needed more testing to be certain that kids would put the toys in their mouths?

See, my goal IS to have Devs stop coming here and providing this type of information. What I want the Devs to provide is information that (1) their systems are being released in as bug-free a manner as possible (again, I FULLY accept some bugs will be released, that's a law of programming), (2) their systems that have KNOWN bugs will not be released until those KNOWN bugs are fixed, and (3) that they're providing a quality product from the outset, not after they have to patch the same thing three, four, or five times.

You do understand that by releasing unfinished material that they are (1) pushing back other material so they can fix what is released, or (2) just not going to fix it in favor of other material.

*sigh*

Well, when the Devs come here and give information that is always "well, we published, we knew there were bugs, but we figured you'd enjoy a system we hope to fix in the future in the state it's in," and that's all you ever here, just look to people like yourself and the blame will be right there for you to see.

 

[canary]

Well enjoy. And when devs stop coming here and sharing this kind of info with us, look to yourselves to blame.

So you are saying we should molly coddle the people whose salaries we pay for so that they will communicate with us on any level?

Uhm, wow. Oh, and may I add LOL to that. rolleyes:

No. We should expect them to provide us both quality service AND a decent level of communication. Without US, the paying playerbase, they would merely be on an unemployment line.

 

[Tukaram]

When we implemented the treasure map randomization, we knew we wouldn't be able to make it so every chest would be in a diggable spot at launch. We will continue to work on the algorithm and hopefully it will get better through iteration. For now just hang onto those maps for 30 days and you will be able to decode them again.

Remove the randomization. It's a waste of time and will always be filled with bugs. You will never be able to fix 100%. Static maps we have built histories among there locations.

Abso-freakin-lutely!