It is clear to me from user’s responses that not everyone’s computer can handle 101+ items. It would not be proper to offer a service we cannot deliver, yet some will both want it and be able to use it (even though some simply will not want it). After listening to responses on the forum, where it is easiest to keep track of it, I think this is how the matter should be handled in future.
(Image by Yasmeen Daruvala)
Some have a use for 200+ items, some do not. Some think that having 200 items would be an unfair advantage in competitions, others do not. I agree with those who dislike the app becoming split between those who can use 200 items and those who cannot --- though it is also clear that in PnF this would be far less of a handicap than it was in fluff. In fluff 41 items was something anyone could find a use for, whereas in PnF 101 items is more than many (if not most) of the users can find a use for.
Making 200 items a subscription only privilege would be far less of a handicap to those who cannot pay than the use of 80 items was in fluff. Even so, I am against 'subscription only' use. However games commonly require users to work for the use of better features, thus rewarding those who use the game regularly.
To bar competition entries with 101+ images just means disabling one button for images with 101+ items in them. To enable use of 200 items by all, but only for competitions, would mean major changes to the way images are saved, and experience shows that waiting for Al to have time to deal with changes of that kind could cause delays 3 to 6 months longer than would otherwise be the case.
However, what is meant by 'competition'? The current weekly 'competitions' are 'won' by all who take part; they all get prizes. The only prize for the most liked image is to provide our banner for one week. Is that what is meant by those who have a problem with use of 200 items in competitions or not? Or were they referring to the fluff art comps where users voted for art competitively? In my view such 'competitions' are just popularity contests, and were also too big for the typical user to view or vote on the majority of entries. So I have no aspiration to run open entry art competitions with game related prizes in PnF, ever.
Given all of the above, if and when there is time to provide the following, this is the best plan I have come up with so far:
1. All users will get ONE chance to use 200 items in the editor for ONE month as a free trial, once they have an inventory with 200+ items and have bought 200+ items (the second point prevents people cheating by using multiple accounts). The point of this is to make sure everyone can find out whether the benefit works on their computer and whether they have a use for it.
2. Users would be able to use game rewards to buy a one month permit to use the editor with 200 items. How much this would cost is yet to be decided, but it must be achievable for any user who has time to play the game (say) one hour a day. Whether they use their game rewards to do so or to spend on other things would be their choice, and there would be no compulsion to buy the use of 200 items in August just because the same user had done so in July.
3. Payment for the facility would result in being given a ‘200’ ticket, which could be exchanged or given away.
4. Open entry art competitions with in-game prizes (if we ever have any) would be restricted to the use of 100 items or less. Our current 'participation prize' competitions would not.
5. GIVEN THE ABOVE POINTS 1 to 4 WERE ALREADY WORKING, 200 items could also become a subscription bonus. The subscriber would get a free ‘200’ ticket, but others could get a ticket by working for it. If a subscriber did not want the ticket or their computer could not cope with using it, they could trade or gift the ticket and someone else could benefit instead.
=============
That is how I would proceed IF we ever offer the use of 200 items. The alternative is not to offer the use of 200 items AT ALL, because if some users cannot use it, to offer it to all would be selling the game as capable of doing a thing when some user's computers would not be able to cope.
My desire is harmonious use of the game with the best features possible. But like everything else, introducing ‘200’ tickets would take time; the idea has to take its place in the queue.
My thanks to all those who tried out the feature, those who expressed their concerns and those who simply said they had no use for it. All those opinions help me to assess the market for such a feature and the implications of introducing it.