These forums are CLOSED. Please visit the new forums HERE
Openspace Announcement Discussion with Jack Linden |
|
Coventina Aeon
Registered User
Join date: 3 Feb 2008
Posts: 8
|
10-30-2008 04:28
My husband and I hesitated for the longest time before finally making the decision to purchase an os sim which took place just two weeks ago... talk about bad timing! We certainly do NOT abuse our prim usuage nor is there a lot of traffic. We enjoy the privacy and solitude our sim offers us and to us alone. We feel this increase is grossly unfair and hopefully some other remedial action will be taken. Why not develop an assessment committee to review all os sims and impose an increase or a tax on those whom you deem to be a huge burden on the system. Remove the increase/tax when the owner corrects the situation and returns the sim to an acceptable level of usage. We simply cannot afford to stay on our sim if this increase takes place and probably will use SL for no more than a chat room and will more than likely NOT renew our premium accounts either. Too bad it has come to this but you truly leave us no choice.
|
Alf Lednev
Registered User
Join date: 28 Mar 2007
Posts: 11
|
Rereading Missing Jack's blog
10-30-2008 04:29
I reread missing Jack's blog again, I love his attempted handjob to the masses,
"The first thing I would like to do, is to thank everyone for taking time to give feedback. We’ve read it all, including the forum posts, and almost all of you have made your points constructively and clearly. We are blessed with highly passionate and intelligent residents and that makes for good dialogue, which we really appreciate." Funny how all those Lindens were incapable of actually responding to any of it. Some of the questions could and should have been answered and Missing Jack should have linked his "sl talk" to the forum tp provide information. He could have linked the blog entry in here to, sadly nothing has been done. . The funniest part of the blog is of course this bit "Although comments are Off for this post initially, they will be opened tomorrow when I’ll be around to read/respond to them" Uh Huh Just like he responded in here. Everyone remember Katt's statement in the first OS blog, this great joke? "1 Katt Linden Says: October 27th, 2008 at 6:37 PM To discuss this post, please see the Forum thread: Openspace Announcement Discussion with Jack Linden /354/1.html Jack will read all the comments posted there, and will reply in that thread as well. Thank you!" 178 pages, 2600 posts plus and one small meaningless post by missing Jack around the 500 post number. Then a motherhood Blog post today. At no point has he nor any other Linden answered a question posed. His back pedalling though is interesting. " And we’re not saying that everyone is abusing resources. We are saying that the use has changed, and continues to do so as people find more creative ways to use them. So the revised pricing is about recognising that change of use and the additional costs and value associated with it." Some posters here have shown Lindens have been amongst the worst offenders in abuse, on OS sims. funny how that was left out. Naturally for full transparany missing Jack will immediately ensure those Linden OS sims are returned to sea and trees and notify the forum. Likewise has the conciege given out incorrect and misleading information to cutomers? Some here have claimed so, that is VERY serious and undermines missing jack's knowledge base red herring. Also funny how he uses that word abuse again, clearly inferring abuse is occuring. Someone a few pages back claimed he didn't, funny how words can be read by different folk. . The whole exercise is just a cash grab to try and fix a mistake and the back pedalling is happening to try and find a face saving compromise. If a compromise is reached, it will be history, LL arrogance is legendary (a sample is the initial OS blog by Missing Jack telling the great unwashed what their betters have decided what is good for them). Interesting times ahead. One thing is certain Missing Jack and even poor Katt have been tarnished badly by their inablity to do as they said, reply and answer in here. Lots more handjobs to come for all. |
Ariadne Korda
Registered User
Join date: 20 Jan 2007
Posts: 4
|
SERIOUSLY unimpressed by the update
10-30-2008 04:30
OK, wow, an update. Which says nothing except to spew out the stuff on 'but we wanted them to be open spaces' again.
Sure, the ADVISED use was open spaces, but this was... advice. It is perfectly possible to put up a city and keep scripts and resources low, as our own place has proved with its level of 2.5. If you didn't want people to 'use them more creatively' (I'm paraphrasing you) then you should have SET LIMITS, not punish thousands afterwards. This is no way to run a company. Your communications skills are quite simply pathetic. YOU ARE NOT LISTENING. A company that listens doesn't trot out that sort of meaningless drivel. If it was meant to be reassuring.... you fail. Miserably. Like a lot of businesses (including mine, but it's quite clear you don't care about creators, except your own pet ones). |
Chaz Longstaff
Registered User
Join date: 11 Oct 2006
Posts: 685
|
10-30-2008 04:31
if you bought it on your credit card, call the credit card company and cancel the purchase.
My husband and I hesitated for the longest time before finally making the decision to purchase an os sim which took place just two weeks ago... talk about bad timing! _____________________
Thread attempting to compile a list of which animations are freebies, and which are not:
http://forums.secondlife.com/showthread.php?t=265609 |
Louhi Gothly
Registered User
Join date: 28 Jun 2008
Posts: 3
|
10-30-2008 04:33
I'm Posting here Lindens not as a sim owner but as some one that might be interested in owning or renting one and my opinion on the subject as simple as i can state it. The comment about the openspace sims being abused is fairly harsh, people go to openspace sims as a way to beable to have a home or workshop that are on a limited budget, this gives them the freedom to do whatever they like without the consequences of having to deal with nasty neighbors like on mainland. By increasing the tier on these sims you are not only hurting yourselves but the sim owners and renters on these properties, this hurts you because after you increase the prices you will see a substantial drop in the amount of openspaces that are owned and your hurting the sim owners and renters because they both have to pay 50$ more than they used too. Now 50$ may not seem like alot to you but for alot of us fokes it buys you dinner for a week or puts gas in your car. My suggestion if these sims are causing so much strain on the servers is to make the cost of full servers a bit cheaper? perhaps bring the tier back down to 195$ or even 95$ on a full server. Unless you guys are trying to force everyone off the private sims and back onto mainland so they have to pay the stupid premium membership along with the tiers they pay now? Economically the prices need to drop instead of raising, You need to expand the realm not shrink it and by raising these prices you will be shrinking it and alienating a bunch of people. My Economic Plan: Full Sims 1000$ Down : 95$ Tier Openspaces 125$ Down : 50$ Tier With this plan everyone would be able to have there own little piece of heaven without it costing them an arm and a leg and owning a full sim will finally be affordable. Openspaces shouldn't cost as much as they do to buy even if they are running 16 to a cpu you guys are already taking people for there money i mean come on do the figures 1 Quadcore system 16 Openspace sims at 250$ = 4000$ and Collecting Tier at 1250$ a Month 1 Quadcore system 1 Full prim sim at 1000$ And Collecting Tier 395$ a month And in jan its going its going up to 375$ to be an additional 2000$, making it 6000$ for *1 Quad Core Computer* I don't know about you guys but i build a pretty decent quad core system for half that. Common guys....Use some common sense. I don't mean to single you out, but I'm using you as an example of a few posts on here. The point is simple, no matter how you dress this issue up, and whatever proposed increase of prim limits or tactical restrictions on script use and traffic used as a sweetener to appease the masses, belies the fact that I paid for an OS sim with a prim limit of 3750 and an ADVISORY note saying that if what I built there caused poor performance, then be it on my own head. If I cannot use the 3750 prims without performance suffering then I have not been sold a sim with a prim limit of 3750 prims, I have been sold the false IDEA of one through misrepresentation, and that, whether digital or rl is an offence. LL should have QA'd this more thouroughly, I certainly would have taken part in a trial project to see how openspace sims would have performed at different levels. Instead, LL decided on a haphazard approach, a 'we'll cross that bridge when we come to it' business model which is indicative of the way that LL operates as a whole. In summary... Jack, I want what I paid for, not half of it and not at any increased price, anything less than that is extortion and moral turpitude |
MaCelia Morane
Registered User
Join date: 5 Apr 2008
Posts: 24
|
Comment on Jack's follow-up blog post
10-30-2008 04:34
Glad to see Jack posting a reply on the blog and reading the forums feedback. I just want to make a quick response to that second blog post -
"It is clear that some Openspaces are being used as they were intended originally, so we recognise that there are different levels of usage that we need to account for." So, I'm hoping that means that you're seriously considering not applying the price increase to those using openspaces as originally intended. That would be great - basically, giving folks two types of openspaces to choose from with two pricing levels to reflect the difference in usage. Maybe lower the # prims on the truly "light use" ones, too? {I know there are other major issues with the policy change, but other folks are in a much better position than I am to articulate those effectively - keep up the great work, SL residents - you're the best!!!} -------- ...But I, being poor, have only my dreams; I have spread my dreams under your feet; Tread softly because you tread on my dreams. W.B. Yeats (1865–1939) "He Wishes For the Cloths of Heaven" from the Collected Works of W.B. Yeats |
Qie Niangao
Coin-operated
![]() Join date: 24 May 2006
Posts: 7,138
|
10-30-2008 04:36
Multiply 3750x4. You get 15.000? Prims per sq. meter is not the issue, script usuage and textures are what drag down performance, neither of which are limited at this point. The point is this has NOTHING to do with addressing resouce problems. Charging us all more for Open Space sims will do nothing on that front. And as server load is NOT the issue here, it really makes no difference anyway. First, there's backend overhead imposed just by being a sim, regardless of primcount or CPU sharing configuration. We mere mortals have no way of evaluating how much network traffic and central server load is presented by each sim, but obviously it's not zero: there's a fairly steady stream of communications that must be maintained between each sim and the Presence service, at least, and probably others. That overhead does not reduce at all just because the sim is sharing a core with others. And it's completely unrelated to any performance metrics we can see on the sim itself. Then there's the actual--as opposed to theoretical--load presented by use of a standalone sim. This, too, is impossible for us to measure with any accuracy, but it does at least vary in some proportion to the performance load on the server. The thing is, in practice and on average, it's a pretty sure bet that four OpenSpaces really do get substantially more use than one average full-primmed sim. If that weren't true, the OpenSpace product just wouldn't have been so popular. (For statistical purists: if LL is measuring this difference, they're probably getting an overestimate; OpenSpaces are on average much newer than full-primmed sims, and newer sims tend to get heavier usage. Steady-state, that difference should diminish somewhat.) As I've posted before, none of this excuses LL from treating customers fairly in the face of LL's own screw-up in poorly estimating the capacity demands this product creates. The blog proposal is not acceptable. But customers can now either encourage LL to devise a workable alternative or just make up explanations for why and how deeply LL sucks. _____________________
Archived for Your Protection
|
Liz Ferlinghetti
Registered User
Join date: 16 Oct 2006
Posts: 9
|
A suggestion...
10-30-2008 04:40
First of all I'll declare an interest as I have an openspace sim in addition to my full region.
I've been reading the posts here and in other places with interest. The recent update from Jack Linden also shows that there is some consideration going on with how they can move things forward. From what I understand so far LL thought that SL users would buy openspace sims and use them for very little. Earlier this year they upped the prim level and allowed them to be self contained rather than linked to a full region. I'm not sure why LL thought that we would buy space and not use the prim allowance - I've recently done a full sim build with not much more than the prim usage that I would get with an openspace so you can do quite a bit with 3750 prims. Also from what I am understanding (I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong!) there isn't a limit on avatars on an openspace or the number of scripts that can be run. Perhaps the answer is to have a sliding scale on all these types of content. In this way if you wanted to have an openspace with very little prim content but with a lot of avatars then then you could purchase the ability to do this. They could stick to the 65k m2 geographic size sim but you could then add in the amount of content that you wanted to use. I would probably have max 10 avatars on my openspace (more likely 2/3) and I run very few scripts but I would want the 3750 prim allowance. If they gave us a menu of choices of what we could buy and then make that the max then heavy users would pay more and light users would pay less. Surely they could use the technology to throttle usage to the limits you have paid for? If someone wanted an openspace to run clubs/scripts - heavy use stuff - then the pricing could be set so that it was actually more cost effective for them to purchase a full sim. If you were going to be much lighter user then you pay less. Maybe this way we could keep everyone happy and allow flexibility of use without accusations of abuse. |
Alberik Rotaru
Registered User
Join date: 12 Aug 2007
Posts: 3
|
how not to communicate a decision
10-30-2008 04:42
It's really quite hard to imagine how Linden Lab could have handled communicating this decision worse.
(1) An announcement made out of the blue that generates a grid-wide panic. (2) A promise to discuss the decision that ends in one post on a thread of thousands. (3) Failure to even give the bare courtesy of a reply to major communities like Irukandji. (3) The nonsense with upgrading the 2 Linden-abused open space sims after the fact. (4) The official blog has stood almost silent for month. Then we get the All your open space are belong to us post. Then suddenly we get a couple of filler posts in rapid succession. Then we get another Jack post promising further discussion, but no the discussion that as already promised. (5) Every message is written in such tortuous ambiguous language that it could be cited as a case study for what Orwell said about suppressing dialogue with vague, confusing and ambiguous language. Seriously, where did Linden Lab's communications people train? The university of Pyongyang? I'd suggest this issue needs to be addressed at a fairly senior level. It is way beyond what Jack can solve and needs a post by someone with authority in the company, preferably the CEO, and preferably using language that is clear, succinct and jargon-free. When major communities are already shutting down this is beyond a panic, justified or not, and fast becoming a crisis of confidence in the company itself. |
eku Zhong
Apocalips = low prims
Join date: 27 May 2008
Posts: 752
|
10-30-2008 04:43
Could perhaps a structure be found that those owners who have anchored (or will in future anchor) their OS to their full SIMs (e.g. at a maximum ratio of 4 OS to 1 full SIM) continue to pay (either grandfathered or even in future circumstances) the "original" price of US$ 75 per month, whereas those who do not anchor them and have them as "stand alone" OS, and obviously therefore (need to) make the other (previously unforeseen?) use of these OS then "just" empty water or forest will be charged at the mentioned higher price of US$ 125 per month? As per my previous calculation: 900 US$ for an additional empty 'void' SIM on top of the full SIMs which are already in possession may perhaps be seen as reasonable (but is still a lot of money!), whereas 1500 US$ per annum seems to border on sheer lunacy. This could also prove to be the rescue e.g. for the larger RP clustered SIMs, and the sailing sims like USS federation (and many others). (And no, I have never sailed on them, neither do I engage in RP, but I do sympathise with their predicament). This is one of the most common sense suggestions i have read so far.. _____________________
|
minijean Dodonpa
Registered User
Join date: 20 Nov 2006
Posts: 1
|
A winning winning arrangement
10-30-2008 04:45
Because it seems that the evolution of openspaces was logical and because on the other hand some use them in the way foreseen(planned) at first. We could imagine to preserve openspace in $75 for ocean, forests, beaches. And openspaces in $125 for the real-estate. With he(it) seems to me one time of adaptation for the owners can echo this increase, without meeting itself from day to day with empty sims.
_____________________________________________________________ Puisqu'il semble que l'évolution des openspaces ai été logique et que d'autre part certains les utilisent de la manière prévue au départ., On pourrait imaginer de conserver des openspace à 75$ pour les ocean, forêts, plages. et des openspaces à 125$ pour l'immobilier. avec il me semble un temps d'adaptation pour les propriétaires puissent répercuter cette hausse, sans se retrouver du jour au lendemain avec des sims vides |
Merryman Mondegreen
Registered User
Join date: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 5
|
Disillusioned
10-30-2008 04:45
Yes...I am disillusioned! Call me naive but I would have expected a great deal more understanding of their business and their loyal customers from LL. It is these thousands of people who have invested their time and their hard-earned cash in making SL the wonderful place it is.
My main concern about LL's lack of care and thought for all of us in this predicament is their disregard for the many thousands of hours of creativity that has gone into making so many attractive sims which others are able to enjoy.........The sudden announcement reveals a very cavalier attitude to their customer base......How do they expect people who are struggling with financial downturn in RL to be able to afford such an increase at this time? Have they even considered the disillusion and disappointment to be suffered by many because of this? The hours and money wasted .... all coming to nothing if people cannot afford to carry on with their creative schemes ..... all begun because of LL's providing this OS product in the first place. Come on LL folk......have some real consideration and reconsider your decision on this. Step up to the mark and show your better side....i the long run you will gain more loyalty from the public and SL will prosper as never before. With this announcement you have damaged your credibility as so-called Customer-Carers!! |
minijean Dodonpa
Registered User
Join date: 20 Nov 2006
Posts: 1
|
Winning winning arrangement
10-30-2008 04:48
Because it seems that the evolution of openspaces was logical and because on the other hand some use them in the way planned at first. We could imagine to preserve openspace in $75 for ocean, forests, beaches. And openspaces in $125 for the real-estate. With it seems to me one time of adaptation for the owners can echo this increase, without meeting itself from day to day with empty sims.
_______________________________________ Puisqu'il semble que l'évolution des openspaces ai été logique et que d'autre part certains les utilisent de la manière prévue au départ., On pourrait imaginer de conserver des openspace à 75$ pour les ocean, forêts, plages. et des openspaces à 125$ pour l'immobilier. avec il me semble un temps d'adaptation pour les propriétaires puissent répercuter cette hausse, sans se retrouver du jour au lendemain avec des sims vides |
Ann Otoole
Registered User
Join date: 22 May 2007
Posts: 867
|
10-30-2008 04:50
if you bought it on your credit card, call the credit card company and cancel the purchase. Do this and LL will suspend your account until the charge reversal is reversed so this is a bad idea unless you intend to cancel your account first. This is a very drastic action and people may wish to think about it for a while first. There is evidence now (listed earlier in this thread so go actually read it) that the server loading was caused by the viewer. It appears the mob mentality does not wish to hear this at all so I am just disappointed in the entire thing. I expect to hear something from the lab within 24 hours on this viewer problem and how it relates or does not relate to the overall problem. Why if they fix the viewer DDOSing the asset server defect then I might be able to remain in SL after time warner implements the 40GB a month usage cap. So the issue is really massive. It will not be solved by charging more. It will be resolved by some programmer fixing the hack some other worse programmer put in to conceal the effects of bad coding. That is if I understand all the technical information in the associated jira. So this is the litmus test for LL. Some honesty and humility would be a good thing if indeed it is the fault of LL's programmers that caused the server overloading. Anyway I'm sure since I am not calling for crucifixions of Lindens my comments will be largely ignored by the mob. |
Joyce Trafalgar
Registered User
Join date: 27 Jun 2008
Posts: 10
|
Good news, bad behaviour
10-30-2008 04:52
Yes, you are reading right! I think the new policy are good news. Primarily good news for the owners of full prim sims who get their value back. I know too many suffering from the destroyed land market.
Sure, it's bad news as well, bad news for people like me, who profited from the ability to find an affordable plot to build a home on an isolated island in a beautiful environment. But the really bad thing is the unstable behaviour of Linden Lab!!! First, making OS sims attractive by doubling the number of prims and lowering prices and then, after anybody jumps on the wagon, claiming abuse and increase the prices. If I would be a land lord, I would stop making business with you, Linden Lab! You are not a partner I can trust on. I made a perfect business plan based on the use of OS sims, but stopped to go for it, because I could not find reliable numbers for my financial plannings over 12 to 16 months. I'm glad I didnt start the business (which would have been more a hobby than a business anyway), because unless people are willing to pay 66% more, my plan would have terribly failed. As I now the market a little bit, I guess that many of the smaller and medium landlords, who got forced to enter the OS market, are exactly in this bad situation. I'm wondering what's next you are going to do to get my confidence back or destroy it even more. At least, for now you try to fix a mistake you made, even it hurts. A good decision if you want to survive on the long run! |
Jake Ansett
Registered User
Join date: 29 Oct 2006
Posts: 225
|
10-30-2008 04:52
As I suggested in this thread; /354/86/290062/1.html#post2199290
Why not just make things the way the used to be. Bring back the requirement to purchase 4 at a time, and to have them anchored to full prims sims as well. I also suggest to take it a step further, and drop the prims to 900, and price to $50 a month, and cap scripts. If you truly want OSs to be used the way they are "intended", then it's really a no brainer. While your making the above changes, allow people to also convert OSs to full primmers for free, and you might just turn this whole mess around - a little bit. |
Jake Ansett
Registered User
Join date: 29 Oct 2006
Posts: 225
|
10-30-2008 04:54
if you bought it on your credit card, call the credit card company and cancel the purchase. How's this for bad timing - I sold an OS sim to someone about 3 hours before the announcement. The time from support ticket transfer request to actual sim transfer was one hour if you can believe that. |
Sandy Schnook
Official Dorkette
Join date: 31 Dec 2005
Posts: 60
|
10-30-2008 04:54
I have looked through as many pages of this thread as I could. I've read what Jack posted as a reply and this quote keeps making me confused:
Thirdly, I wanted to clarify one issue. As mentioned in the post, Openspaces were intended for space, empty areas of ocean or forest. Take a look at the Knowledgebase article description here. By that criteria, the large majority of Openspaces have more going on than was the original intent. We are not suggesting this is a bad thing, and of course we’re delighted that people have found them to be so useful. And we’re not saying that everyone is abusing resources. We are saying that the use has changed, and continues to do so as people find more creative ways to use them. So the revised pricing is about recognising that change of use and the additional costs and value associated with it. WTF does something intended for just a simple forest or even more so, an OCEAN need 3750 prims? How is using an Openspace sim for an ocean filled with 3750 prims worth of fish, better then a house and accessories if the house et al uses less prims? I realize scripts and textures come into play also, and realize there are some abusing their Openspace sims. But this price hike is ridiculous. And then I thought on it some more. I seriously doubt it's really that much of a strain on resources, if everyone really is limited to using 1/4 of a regular sims allowance. I think LL realized openspace sims are a huge hit and see a chance to make a tidy profit if they can get everyone to play along. Someone mentioned that there was over 20,000 openspace sims created. The price hike will be $50 US a month per sim if we all play along. 50 x 20000 = $1 million US per month. $12 million a year, if they find enough people willing to pay. You know of any business that would turn down 12 million per annum? I have long been a supporter of SL, and have brought many others into this world, but I'm currently finding it very hard to justify remaining. I co-rent an OS sim, and we're thinking of just letting it go, cause $125 per month is a kick in our ass. I could understand a small increase, but if I had a landlord in RL that told me rent would nearly double in two months, I'd start looking for someplace else to live about 5 seconds later. |
Kahiro Watanabe
Registered User
Join date: 28 Sep 2007
Posts: 572
|
Technical Solutions
10-30-2008 04:54
A few days ago we spoke to a Linden from Technical Resources to find technical solutions to this issue, and we suggested:
Suggestions for avoiding abuse resource in Open Space sims: Technical Solutions: Limiters: -Limit avatars amount to 15 at one time -Limit script load -Ban use of camp bots The biggest cause of lag are avatars so reducing avatars amount at one time will help to reduce lag inmensily. If te biggest cause of lag are avatars, camp bots are the biggest cause of lag in the whole grid. Therefore actions should be taken regarding the real abusers of server resources: camp/traffic bot users. Another Technical Fact: Prims and scripts amount are not the problem: limiting prims is not a solution, it is possible to lag a whole sim with a few script, and you can have a stable sim with lo of prims and lot of unactive/well written scripts. Also we found some things that makes this policy non-sense: -Mainland is much more laggier than open spaces sims -A few days ago Open Space sims owned by Governor Linden had been found, and they resulted to have a heavy script load, now they were converted to full sims but snapshots are taken that proves that they were open space sims and they show the script time in ms. We are a group of 5000+ organizing ourselves trying to find the best solution to this. To begin we are asking for total grandfatherin as a first stage. But we consider that there should not be a price hike at all. This will be discussed further when we have more work done. _____________________
|
hexx Triskaidekaphobia
Born Again Pagan
Join date: 15 Feb 2007
Posts: 100
|
10-30-2008 04:55
Regardless of that loss, the lesson remains - businesses, education, and individuals cannot thrive in an environment where the future is unpredictable, and that is exactly what SL is today. Which makes it just like RL. Don't see no problem there. _____________________
my other bike is a broom
|
JCS Hawker
Registered User
Join date: 14 Nov 2007
Posts: 2
|
10-30-2008 04:58
Openspace sims are so popular because much of the mainland stinks and is overpriced.
I do not come to SL to look at blight. And openspace sims allow for more creativity and 'privacy' [although that really is just an illusion when online]. LL would have to start enforcing zoning AND control the land bot / land speculators for at least a year and do a good job of it before I'd even consider having a plot on mainland. I consider the condition of the mainland sims as failed quality control. I took a look at Nautilus and the land speculators jumped right in there - bought plots and put assinine prices on them. I really don't think that there is any reason to believe that Nautilus will ever be as nice as the private estates. By increasing prices in this fashion, without having put reasonable attempts to deal with sim overload first, you have 1) damaged LL's credibility 2) given your customers more reason to look for other options BTW how feasible would it be to have people host their own sims on their own machines and still be able to connect to SL? I suspect that you'll say something about compatability, security, etc. but if given reasonable costs and options what people really want is freedom and control to do what they want. And if they misuse their own sim and start to 'feel' it on their own machine, possibly they'd be more responsible - or at least easier to isolate from the rest of the grid. |
Misty Harley
Registered User
Join date: 7 Oct 2006
Posts: 19
|
10-30-2008 04:58
Do this and LL will suspend your account until the charge reversal is reversed so this is a bad idea unless you intend to cancel your account first. This is a very drastic action and people may wish to think about it for a while first. There is evidence now (listed earlier in this thread so go actually read it) that the server loading was caused by the viewer. It appears the mob mentality does not wish to hear this at all so I am just disappointed in the entire thing. Easy there...many of us click to the last page and see if any Linden responded then work from there.....but thanks for sharing the information. |
Deirdre Masala
Registered User
Join date: 14 Apr 2007
Posts: 7
|
reduce the maximum number of avatars?
10-30-2008 04:58
Maybe enforcing lower limits for the number of agents in a single Openspace region would help preventing resource abuses. Now here I can agree... The open spaces were intended for light use, and for that reason have only 1/4 of the max number or prims. A good way to reduce the possibilty for abuse could be to reduce the maximum number of avatars being there to 1/4 (25) or en less (15?). This would make the use of an open sim for a shopping mall or a club completely uninteresting, as well as for renting it out to others (ever given a house warming party?). I'm not a technical wonder, but it seems to me that in this way the performance problem would be largely solved? I am in the position that I just purchased 2 open sims, not to rent out, but as a way to make my private region more beautiful... now I dont know if I can keep them and selling them is no option anymore due to this decision of Linden Lab.... It may very well be that i have to stop paying simply and leave sl with all its nice assets with bleeding heart |
Jupiter Garzo
Registered User
Join date: 2 Nov 2007
Posts: 1
|
To be honest... this is pathetic
10-30-2008 04:59
I work in the server industry and it does not cost 200usd to upgrade a server.. Sorry guys I understand that the price increase is to number 1, upgrade the server, but I also see this as your way to reduce the number of open space sims in usuage right now. With the way most economys are currently, everyone is looking to cut their own costs and well I personally see this as another way for LL to make a few extra bucks. You created the open space sim for people to use. We are using them. So now because they are being used "too much", now you get strickter... come on wise up. Your making money... This "increase" is only going to make people leave the game. I mean hell we already deal with the fluctuating Linden dollar... You raise costs to the land which means instead of spending it on your current residents who buy your land, rent stores, sell items in SL, and ultimately have made the game much better, we spend our money on your land. I don't see how this is going to help anything but only hurt it. Don't forget LL there are MANY online games like yourself that we all could go too. Push us away once and we won't come back which ultimately means bye bye to Second Life
|
Rya Nitely
Registered User
Join date: 9 Nov 2007
Posts: 4
|
Feeding on people's addictions
10-30-2008 05:01
Their answer to the problem is to give them more money, alot more money. They're feeding on people's addictions. Like drug dealers... start off cheap until you get them hooked, then bang, charge whatever you like.
|