[quote name="Flutes" date="2019-05-01 06:57:48" ]
No support. They changed it for a reason and it's SO tedious to send stacks of things to people.
[/quote]
No more tedious than sending just one of something to someone under the new system. This argument only works if you're sending stacks of food to people on a daily or near-daily basis. That's not a ton of people. People who don't send stacks on the regular aren't even going to notice the extra 3 seconds gone from their day.
They changed the AH to default to single items because people were messing it up and losing tons of money. It doesn't make sense to do the reverse for CRs and PMs. And quite frankly, as someone who sells food on the AH, I'd rather take the extra few seconds to make sure my stacks are at 99 so that someone else doesn't accidentally give their hard-earned food away for free.
Flutes wrote on 2019-05-01 06:57:48:
No support. They changed it for a reason and it's SO tedious to send stacks of things to people.
No more tedious than sending just one of something to someone under the new system. This argument only works if you're sending stacks of food to people on a daily or near-daily basis. That's not a ton of people. People who don't send stacks on the regular aren't even going to notice the extra 3 seconds gone from their day.
They changed the AH to default to single items because people were messing it up and losing tons of money. It doesn't make sense to do the reverse for CRs and PMs. And quite frankly, as someone who sells food on the AH, I'd rather take the extra few seconds to make sure my stacks are at 99 so that someone else doesn't accidentally give their hard-earned food away for free.
It takes
Twelve Years for one Imperial pair to produce a Primal-eyed offspring of a specific sex. Goal-based breeding is dead.
Support! It's making flowerbombs such a pain for me to send.
And think of it this way- with either system, people can send the wrong amount, that will always be true. So accepting that as true, why not have it default to the minimum amount, so if you make an error it's more likely that you didn't send enough items, rather than too many? That's more easily corrected, by you or the recipient noticing and then sending a follow-up with more items.
Whereas with the new way, you're more likely to make an error that's sending more than you wanted to, and be put in the awkward position of having to ask the recipient to give back the items, which they may or may not do since it wouldn't be breaking the rules to just keep them, especially if they're valuable, like eggs or whatnot.
Support! It's making flowerbombs such a pain for me to send.
And think of it this way- with either system, people can send the wrong amount, that will always be true. So accepting that as true, why not have it default to the minimum amount, so if you make an error it's more likely that you didn't send enough items, rather than too many? That's more easily corrected, by you or the recipient noticing and then sending a follow-up with more items.
Whereas with the new way, you're more likely to make an error that's sending more than you wanted to, and be put in the awkward position of having to ask the recipient to give back the items, which they may or may not do since it wouldn't be breaking the rules to just keep them, especially if they're valuable, like eggs or whatnot.
No support. Sending stacks of items-especially food- is extremely tedious to do. Especially on mobile devices. It gets frustrating. I would, however, support something like typing i the stack amount you want to send
No support. Sending stacks of items-especially food- is extremely tedious to do. Especially on mobile devices. It gets frustrating. I would, however, support something like typing i the stack amount you want to send
He/they/it/xe
[quote]Support. I really don’t see why it was changed in the first place[/quote]
For real. IF IT AIN'T BROKE DON'T FIX IT. I caught the quantity when I was trying to send somebody ONE Fertility Statue, but then there was no way to reduce it without canceling the item and starting all over. It's adding unnecessary steps.
I mean, really, how hard is it to scroll to 99 to send a stack, IF that's what you want to do? or the quantity you WANT? It's like bad Autocorrect! With 1 as the default, you expect it, but the full stack? NO.
Quote:
Support. I really don’t see why it was changed in the first place
For real. IF IT AIN'T BROKE DON'T FIX IT. I caught the quantity when I was trying to send somebody ONE Fertility Statue, but then there was no way to reduce it without canceling the item and starting all over. It's adding unnecessary steps.
I mean, really, how hard is it to scroll to 99 to send a stack, IF that's what you want to do? or the quantity you WANT? It's like bad Autocorrect! With 1 as the default, you expect it, but the full stack? NO.
If you like them, please Like them!
Support
Accidentally sending 1 when you meant to send 99 is not the end of the world - it can be corrected.
Accidentally sending 99 of some very expensive item (e.g delicate bat wings) when you meant to send 1 IS a MAJOR impact on your wealth.
It creates bad feeling between players if you have to ask for it back. Even worse problems if the other player refuses to give it back. If the staff want players leaving because of fights with other players then this is a good way to go about it.
I don't like the way this was introduced with no up front warning and was sneaked in as a small site status post instead of a proper update. Even that small update was AFTER it had already been introduced, not an upfront warning that it was going to be changed.
The change should have been made very visible in a "forthcoming update" post in big letters. At least a week's notice should have been given for such a potentially disastrous behavior change, so that people knew to expect it - instead of sneaking it in with minimal fanfare and only notifying us of it after it had already happened.
Of course, if they'd done that there would have been uproar with the majority of people saying they didn't want it - and then they would have had a hard time trying to justify introducing it after that.
Support
Accidentally sending 1 when you meant to send 99 is not the end of the world - it can be corrected.
Accidentally sending 99 of some very expensive item (e.g delicate bat wings) when you meant to send 1 IS a MAJOR impact on your wealth.
It creates bad feeling between players if you have to ask for it back. Even worse problems if the other player refuses to give it back. If the staff want players leaving because of fights with other players then this is a good way to go about it.
I don't like the way this was introduced with no up front warning and was sneaked in as a small site status post instead of a proper update. Even that small update was AFTER it had already been introduced, not an upfront warning that it was going to be changed.
The change should have been made very visible in a "forthcoming update" post in big letters. At least a week's notice should have been given for such a potentially disastrous behavior change, so that people knew to expect it - instead of sneaking it in with minimal fanfare and only notifying us of it after it had already happened.
Of course, if they'd done that there would have been uproar with the majority of people saying they didn't want it - and then they would have had a hard time trying to justify introducing it after that.
@
krosotora
That update only mentions CRs. But the behavior for attachments to PMs has also changed - was that announced anywhere (because I can't find it).
@
krosotora
That update only mentions CRs. But the behavior for attachments to PMs has also changed - was that announced anywhere (because I can't find it).
[quote name="Twizz" date="2019-04-29 21:07:40" ]
Support for reverting to the old system for 2 reasons:
1) This is in direct opposition to the changes made to how listing stacks work in the AH. People specifically REQUESTED listings default to 1 item at a time in order to avoid accidentally selling an entire stack of items for the cost of 1. I see no reason why PMs and Crossroads should work counter to this reasoning. Surely people gift full stacks just as often as they sell them. It's a sensible safe-guard.
2) Jumping off of that, it makes no sense to have stacks operate in one way on one part of the site and then operate a different way elsewhere. It's confusing and it's perfectly understandable that a new player or even a long-term player would assume that items list one at a time over all areas of the site.
To that end, I suggest that listing or attaching stacks operate consistently across all areas of the site. Either they default to 1 or they default to the full stack and in that case I would prefer defaulting to 1. It's just plain safer.
[/quote]
Twizz wrote on 2019-04-29 21:07:40:
Support for reverting to the old system for 2 reasons:
1) This is in direct opposition to the changes made to how listing stacks work in the AH. People specifically REQUESTED listings default to 1 item at a time in order to avoid accidentally selling an entire stack of items for the cost of 1. I see no reason why PMs and Crossroads should work counter to this reasoning. Surely people gift full stacks just as often as they sell them. It's a sensible safe-guard.
2) Jumping off of that, it makes no sense to have stacks operate in one way on one part of the site and then operate a different way elsewhere. It's confusing and it's perfectly understandable that a new player or even a long-term player would assume that items list one at a time over all areas of the site.
To that end, I suggest that listing or attaching stacks operate consistently across all areas of the site. Either they default to 1 or they default to the full stack and in that case I would prefer defaulting to 1. It's just plain safer.
i support . the risk of sending more than u wanted far outweighs the annoyance of having to scroll to add a whole stack.
i wouldnt mind a different system being put in place, like a typing field instead of a scrollbox, or buttons to add 1 or 99.
Just gonna copy/paste my thoughts from the other thread here
[quote name="AlphaSobek" date="2019-04-29 18:03:05" ]
My general way of thinking is like...
What's the worst that can happen?
[b]Stacks set to 1: [/b]
You have to send another CR/PM
[b]Stack set to all:[/b]
You loose the items - possibly permanently
While sending a another PM/CR is annoying... You don't have the potential to lose 98 items.
[snip]
To me the choice of which mistake I'd rather make is obvious but I guess to others the convenience beats out that possibility.
[/quote]
I wont quote it but I'll also repeat that the whole "You should just check before you send" is literally the same argument AGAINST the current system. Using it here is almost irrelevant at this point.
BOTH ways require that you CHECK before you send. However, in the eventuality of a mistake I'd gladly take having to send another PM/CR over losing every single other item in that stack.
It might be annoying but it's no where near as devastating as losing out on that many potential items.
AND
As has already been mentioned. If we DO send a stack to someone. They have no obligation to send it back. You have NO other recourse but to shrug and accept that it's gone. Staff do NOT interfere with user transactions and public blacklists are not allowed. So you can't exactly go anywhere on-site to be like "hey watch out this user doesn't return items".
That might be the price you pay for not paying attention but it seems a heck of a lot easier to just send another CR/PM then deal with that aftermath
Just gonna copy/paste my thoughts from the other thread here
AlphaSobek wrote on 2019-04-29 18:03:05:
My general way of thinking is like...
What's the worst that can happen?
Stacks set to 1:
You have to send another CR/PM
Stack set to all:
You loose the items - possibly permanently
While sending a another PM/CR is annoying... You don't have the potential to lose 98 items.
[snip]
To me the choice of which mistake I'd rather make is obvious but I guess to others the convenience beats out that possibility.
I wont quote it but I'll also repeat that the whole "You should just check before you send" is literally the same argument AGAINST the current system. Using it here is almost irrelevant at this point.
BOTH ways require that you CHECK before you send. However, in the eventuality of a mistake I'd gladly take having to send another PM/CR over losing every single other item in that stack.
It might be annoying but it's no where near as devastating as losing out on that many potential items.
AND
As has already been mentioned. If we DO send a stack to someone. They have no obligation to send it back. You have NO other recourse but to shrug and accept that it's gone. Staff do NOT interfere with user transactions and public blacklists are not allowed. So you can't exactly go anywhere on-site to be like "hey watch out this user doesn't return items".
That might be the price you pay for not paying attention but it seems a heck of a lot easier to just send another CR/PM then deal with that aftermath
[quote name="Twizz" date="2019-04-29 21:07:40" ]
Support for reverting to the old system for 2 reasons:
1) This is in direct opposition to the changes made to how listing stacks work in the AH. People specifically REQUESTED listings default to 1 item at a time in order to avoid accidentally selling an entire stack of items for the cost of 1. I see no reason why PMs and Crossroads should work counter to this reasoning. Surely people gift full stacks just as often as they sell them. It's a sensible safe-guard.
2) Jumping off of that, it makes no sense to have stacks operate in one way on one part of the site and then operate a different way elsewhere. It's confusing and it's perfectly understandable that a new player or even a long-term player would assume that items list one at a time over all areas of the site.
To that end, I suggest that listing or attaching stacks operate consistently across all areas of the site. Either they default to 1 or they default to the full stack and in that case I would prefer defaulting to 1. It's just plain safer.
[/quote]
Plus, back when the site launched the AH was like this, where it defaulted to the full stack, and they changed it to default to 1 for a [i]reason[/i]. Folks lost a lot of items they didn't mean to.
The worst case scenario to the default to 1 system is a minor inconvenience, and easily rectified by sending a second CR.
The worst case scenario to the default to all system is a loss of tens of thousands of gems, and you might not be able to rectify it at all.
It isn't worth it to risk that very severe worst case scenario just to get rid of a minor inconvenience.
Twizz wrote on 2019-04-29 21:07:40:
Support for reverting to the old system for 2 reasons:
1) This is in direct opposition to the changes made to how listing stacks work in the AH. People specifically REQUESTED listings default to 1 item at a time in order to avoid accidentally selling an entire stack of items for the cost of 1. I see no reason why PMs and Crossroads should work counter to this reasoning. Surely people gift full stacks just as often as they sell them. It's a sensible safe-guard.
2) Jumping off of that, it makes no sense to have stacks operate in one way on one part of the site and then operate a different way elsewhere. It's confusing and it's perfectly understandable that a new player or even a long-term player would assume that items list one at a time over all areas of the site.
To that end, I suggest that listing or attaching stacks operate consistently across all areas of the site. Either they default to 1 or they default to the full stack and in that case I would prefer defaulting to 1. It's just plain safer.
Plus, back when the site launched the AH was like this, where it defaulted to the full stack, and they changed it to default to 1 for a
reason. Folks lost a lot of items they didn't mean to.
The worst case scenario to the default to 1 system is a minor inconvenience, and easily rectified by sending a second CR.
The worst case scenario to the default to all system is a loss of tens of thousands of gems, and you might not be able to rectify it at all.
It isn't worth it to risk that very severe worst case scenario just to get rid of a minor inconvenience.
