There is a change in the description of the Pail that now says, they will melt at the end of winter. Since probably not many people check item descriptions often, I thought I’d warn others.
Also, personally, I want to rant about this. I bought around ten pails more than what was necessary to get everything from the Wicket. That cost me a small fortune in wild words. I wanted to to exchange those Pails into Tears in Nadir, and I thought I had all the time in the world to do that. Now I am kind of screwed. Catafalquerie does not appear often for me, in fact I have not seen it once this year. I could convert all the Pails into PtPP right now but that way I lose most of the their value (since you do not get much after 5 and I am at 7 already).
So, eh, I think this change in the description is a little late. Like maybe month late? Maybe urchins could tell us when we started buying Pails from them? Because people were even asking on the forum if they will be fine buying Pails for future use. There was no reaction from FB, and, obviously, Alexis doesn’t have the obligation to read every post on the forum, but with no reaction it was very easy to assume that pails will stay. There was not precedent to the contrary (correct me if I am wrong and Pails melted before).
Sorry for being negative, but I spent a good part of the month grinding for those Wild Words. And I really think this change should have been communicated more clearly and at an earlier date.
O Mysterious Flyte: this kind of stuff seems to be up your new alley. At least for me I stored lacre safely in my (assumed) lacre-freezer since last year, and went through some moderate hoops to accumulate more this year. After seeing Fheonix’s warning I’ve started to burn - um, melt - through it, OK, but I wish that I didn’t have to and I bet it’ll catch folks off-guard.
Hmm, I too have a few pails in storage - what’s the best way to make use of it? Build up Taste of Lacre for next year? Take a stab at increasing Scholar of the Correspondence?
[quote=Fhoenix]There is a change in the description of the Pail that now says, they will melt at the end of winter. Since probably not many people check item descriptions often, I thought I’d warn others.[/quote]Thanks for the warning! You’re right: I wouldn’t have checked the description in time. My condolences on your melting investment. :(
And yes, it doesn’t seem fair to handwave things and then apply consequences without proper warning.
Thanks for the warning. I was saving my buckets for when my alt was ready to study the correspondent, but haven’t lost too much. My sympathies for those who have potentially lost out on a significant investment.
[color=#009900]A couple of assumptions you can make at this point:[li][/color]
[color=#009900]
[/color]
[color=#009900]- the pails will melt at any moment; and there’s nothing you can do;[/color]
[color=#009900]- this is an early warning.[/color]
[color=#009900]
[/color]
[color=#009900]If you’ve made the first one, then I don’t imagine you’ll trust anything I say at this point anyway. :-)[/color]
[color=#009900]
[/color]
[color=#009900]
[/color]
[color=#ffffff]To be fair, it’s always possible that a time-travelling maniac with a bad temper and a flamethrower might show up with the express desire of melting everything that vaguely resembles snow. Not that we would have anything to do with that. We would never provoke such an individual. /Ever/.
[/color][li][color=#ffffff]
One might want to hide their lacre anyway. Just to be safe.[/color][/li][li][color=#ffffff] edited by Snowskeeper on 2/4/2014[/color][/li][li] edited by Snowskeeper on 2/4/2014
I was annoyed by the fact Lacre would melt soon but it made sense. It’s February meaning the months are no longer as cold as it was. Since I only had two pails of the stuff among my characters, I just had them all eat it. Because. Why not.
How does one go about protecting Lacre from melting for a bit longer, anyways? Do we put an Exceptional Hat on it and hope the ‘snow’-grudging maniac has terrifically bad eyesight?
I must also confess my disappointment, especially since Tears now need 7 PTPT:TTOL to acquire. Couldn’t we just shove the buckets in the darkest corners of our coal cellars?
[quote=Helen Demeter]I was annoyed by the fact Lacre would melt soon but it made sense. It’s February meaning the months are no longer as cold as it was. Since I only had two pails of the stuff among my characters, I just had them all eat it. Because. Why not.
How does one go about protecting Lacre from melting for a bit longer, anyways? Do we put an Exceptional Hat on it and hope the ‘snow’-grudging maniac has terrifically bad eyesight?[/quote]
[li]
Dig a hollow ten miles deep beneath your fireplace, dump all your lacre into it, and make sure you always have a fire going. No-one would ever even consider hiding snow beneath fire, amirite?
As each pail purchased from the urchins represents approximately a 150E investment, I can see why having 150E rendered useless or destroyed is very disturbing to people, even if the idea of whatever constitutes spring in the Neath would melt the snow logically.
With Fhoenix’s ten pails, he’s looking at a 1500E loss. That’s pretty rough.
I haven’t had any pails since shortly after the Wicket opened, because I foolishly spent all of my Taste and missed the buckets given away on Twitter, so I’m personally unaffected, but if I had been able to stockpile buckets, most likely, I would’ve, also, because I have a decent chunk of WW sitting there – plus, due to my own foolishness, I missed out on two of the lodgings that I wanted.
I do believe it should’ve been announced, because buckets did not melt last year (I still had some), and Fhoenix is correct in saying that few people mouse over things in their inventory unless they are actively about to click on them.
It’s not about the Tears, my Noman is gone, so I don’t need them urgently. And it would be perfectly reasonable for pails to melt, but they did not melt last year. As it was, I felt like I was trolled by the game. I’d laugh if it was one pail. With that many it was rather painful.
To be honest, I am not sure I get Alexis’s reply. The warning came on time? That’s how this was supposed to happen?
Well, depending on what date you consider the last day of winter, you’ve got at least three weeks to do all the lacre-ing you want, and possibly longer. I mean, if we were going by my local calendar, we’d have almost seven months! …but we’re probably not doing that.
I also don’t really understand Alexis’s response in this thread (other than that the lacre likely won’t disappear overnight without warning).
Obviously, FB can do as they think is best, and I agree that in concept it makes sense for the lacre to melt after winter.
However, given that last year’s lacre did not melt, several people (myself included) have assumed that this will also be the case this year, and so we’ve invested quite a bit into getting a few extra pails. Even with this early warning this is disappointing, as I would have much liked to get this warning before buying pails. The cost was not trivial.
Oh, well. I’m sure we’ll find the exact mechanics of this change in its proper time. And all shall be well.
I think I trust the hatkitty to warn us more explicitly before anything happens.
That said, I personally wasn’t rich enough to stockpile any spare bucketfuls this year, so with the one or maybe two pails I have left among my personalities, I suppose I’ll just put by a little extra Taste of Lacre for next year.
[quote=Suitov]I think I trust the hatkitty to warn us more explicitly before anything happens.[/quote]I am posting primarily to express my delight at the coinage "hatkitty". Sorry, Alexis, I’m not sure I’d find it quite so entertaining if it were being applied to me, but I’m certainly never going to look at the Tiger Keeper in quite the same way again.
Also though, haven’t there been lots of warnings for quite a long time now that the lacre’s going to melt? Like "Treasure it. But not for long" and "Already it melts! Use it quickly!" and "The Neath-snow on roofs and pavements is melting". I really wouldn’t bank on getting anything more explicit than that.