• Announcements

    • Retrograde

      DNS Connectivity issues   05/29/17

      We are experiencing some DNS connectivity issues with the login server, unfortunately this is out of our control. We will let you all know when these issues resolve. 


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Ecrir last won the day on June 23 2012

Ecrir had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

507 Excellent

About Ecrir

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Fedria, Akhenaten


  • Inde
  • Acc1
  1. Agreed that there definetly needs to be a warning for new players about the lag on Xanadu.
  2. That's mostly different people. People who like new servers also like to start over and like to move around. They were the first people to move to another server when they couldn't stand the lag, so they likely form a minority on Xanadu. Instead Xanadu logically has far more people who don't like to move around and start over. Shutting it down is likely to drive many of those people away from the game permanently. Considering the game's population isn't that high to begin with, you'd be better of keeping a laggy server and giving people the option to move if they can't stand the lag (the current situation) than removing the server and losing more of the game's population. Especially considering how high Xanadu's population is, clearly the lag is not as big of a dealbreaker as all the "shut down" folk think it is. Shutting it down and adding new servers is thus mostly interesting for people who don't live on Xanadu to begin with...
  3. I have a deed on Xanadu but personally I haven't noticed many lag related issues, perhaps being in Europe helps due to a lower latency, or I'm simply not online during the worst moments of lag. I'd wonder if a different animal system couldn't help reduce the lag. For example, how many of those 300k animals are in the wild (so not penned in, on deed, hitched, branded, etc) and near a player at any given time? If nobody is near the creature then why does it continue to exist? It's existence is only really necessary when a player is close enough to it it (as in, could see it), the rest of the time it might as well not exist. Obviously that sounds much simpler than it actually is, as you don't want penned or branded animals to vanish, etc, but it sounds like resources are being wasted simulating animals which nobody can see and which barely have an effect on the world (besides paving a tile here and there..) Perhaps it could also keep track of how many animals have recently been killed in an area, the lower this amount the more animals would be spawn when a player comes near the area (anything else currently affecting spawns, like deeds and terrain type, should continue to do so). Then after a player hasn't been near that area for a while you'd despawn the creatures again. Areas where recently creatures haven't been killed much could also on average spawn older creatures than areas which see a lot of hunting, thus encouraging players to switch up hunting areas and explore. It could also help address the issue of stuck animals in unreachable areas, and it could fix the difference in animal density between north and south. But it's likely a pretty complex and time intensive system to build.
  4. I voted Yes and No. I feel that a shop with cosmetics would be great for the game, but there's be no point if you can create these in game, as even if it's hard to make those cosmetics, eventually there will be a ton of them anyway. At that point there's no reason to buy them. What I do feel is important here is that if these cosmetics are items which you can wear (armor, weapons), or are crafting tools, then they should be skins which you apply to in game items, not entire items on their own. This way they are an extra step in the crafting process, and you still need to craft an item to which you can then apply the skin. Thus it doesn't bypass the crafting process, making it purely cosmetic.
  5. I voted for an improved interface. Personally I'd like to see an in game alternative to the WTB and WTS forum sections, even if it's just so you can easily search for specific items and then contact the sellers/buyers of said items like you do now. For the WTS part the items should probably all be placed on merchants, with the search interfacing showing you where the merchant is located so you can travel to it and buy the item. Of course you could also contact the seller to have it mailed just like now. Perhaps the buy part could work similarly, with you telling a merchant what to buy and the merchant then taking money directly from your bank when another player offers those items to the merchant.
  6. Won't you need a very large amount of sandstone tiles to build any structure out of sandstone this way? Why is it being implemented differently from marble and slate? And how will this work with a transmutation rod? Will that result in a tile with 10k sandstone, or will sandstone not even be an option? Great to hear about the dredging changes and the new pavement options
  7. Cheap mailing costs encourage trade and thus encourage more player interaction, which is good for the game and player retention. Increasing mailing costs discourages trade and player interaction, it forces people to spend hours on their boats, which is overall still quite boring (and will likely result in their produce getting hit by some lovely decay). Both of those things logically harm player retention. I hope the devs reconsider, as this change is neither in their best interest, nor in Code Club's best interest, nor in the players best interest. At least, as far as I can see. I'd love some more insight into the reasons behind this change to help better understand the direction the game is moving in.
  8. Let's be honest, this isn't a review. It's attempts at debunking several "myths" with some added comments about pvp and history thrown in. If I had never played Wurm before then this "review" would be completely useless as it doesn't tell me anything useful about the game. The attempt to debunk the first myth also contain logical fallacies. Let's take a look at the first Myth, instead of bringing facts you refer to your friends and use that as fact. That's what we call confirmation bias. You assume that since something is the case for all your friends, it must be the case for everybody else as well. That's not how it works. Arguing whether this myth is true or false isn't even possible if you don't first define "many", as without defining "many" you can't possibly argue that many people know about the game. I could define "many" as five or more. So since six of my friends know about this game clearly many people know about Wurm... Or we could say many is at least equal to the amount of sold copies of GTA 5, so any less would be defined as not many. Then I wish you good luck proving that many people know about Wurm. As for the P2W part: From my PvE point of view I'm just spending money to skip some of the grind and use my limited free time to do things in game which I enjoy. I don't even care if that's P2W or not. For example I simply don't want to have to spend a ton of time to dig up 100k dirt for my terraforming projects, I'd rather just buy that from somebody else. I also don't want to earn the silver for that in game either as that takes ages and my available free time is limited due to my full time job, so I'd also rather buy the silver directly from the store. You can tell me that's P2W and I'll just say: So what? I don't see P2W as an issue in a PvE game, but I do agree that it's a big problem in a PvP game. Perhaps it's indeed one of the reasons that PvP is doing so badly, perhaps it's also a reason why PvE is doing so well in comparison.
  9. I think i's going to need some more sources of income than just deed upkeep, even if by increasing the upkeep x4 you also increased the minimum from 1s to 4s. It would probably need things like skins, which could be applied to player created items. Extra face/hair/etc options through more expensive mirrors. The problem in general with full f2p is that most of the income for those games tends to come from 1-5% of the players, whom buy almost everything. Wurm doesn't have that many players and likely also doesn't have enough artists to keep pumping out interesting high quality skins at a high enough rate to generate enough income for f2p to work. Due to this I don't see the free server making enough money, it's more likely to end up costing them money compared to the current situation.
  10. Marble walls and fences would be nice. For bulidings it would go well with marble floors.
  11. Looks like I missed the last winter, and since the snow barely lasts one wurm year I'll be out for quite some time. The current implementation, which Retro seems to imply is balanced around high ql snow, is frankly terrible. For starters, what is the point of players finding low ql snow? The ql of the snow isn't locked by some skill, so the only thing this does is force players to waste a lot of time on a boring chore involving lots of clicking. But much more importantly, winter lasts for an extremely short amount of time compared to the other seasons, especially when consering that snow doesn't survive for much longer than a wurm year. Ever heard of this thing called vacation? Take just the wrong week off and you're screwed once you get back because your snow is gone and you missed winter, so you've got to wait around 6-7 weeks for the next winter. Buying snow from other to compensate for missing a winter isn't an option either due to the rapid decay, so there's not much you can do but suck it up. I really hope the icebox is looked at more seriously, 1 extra week until snowballs decay doesn't cut it. It either needs to last much longer (at least 2 wurm years) or we need some way to store snow decay free, so we can create a large stockpile and refill the icebox when needed. With the storage option we would still need to put in effort to gather the snow, but missing a winter wouldn't screw you over as it does now. In it's current state I will not bother with the icebox any further and strongly agree with Corsan that it's more aggravating than fun/useful.
  12. I don't think a new settleable server is a good idea as it would spread out the player base even further, and the player base is already quite a bit smaller compared to what it was at in some of the previous years. I also doubt it would change much for your friend as it sounds like he's bored. A new server would entertain him for perhaps a few months and then he'd be bored again. He's likely better off taking a break and playing some other games, and then returning to Wurm in the future. Now something like a hunting server, where you can't construct buildings/fences or found deeds, would be quite interesting. Especially if creature density is higher there, etc.
  13. Whatever random system they are using clearly isn't working out well in practice for Xanadu, I hope they take another look at it.
  14. I don't mind tree collision coming back, as long as it works right. So no clipping of corpses/items/whatever through trees. Not just characters, but everything should collide with trees then so nothing can end up stuck in them. I really liked using the collision when climbing, especially as you could sometimes rest between two trees because they were so close together.
  15. Though considering how short winter is in game, and how easy it thus is to miss it due to RL, them lasting 1 Wurm year is probably still too short. If only they could be put in large crates, making storing and trading them easier, etc. Right now you're screwed out of a feature if RL prevents you from logging in for like one week. Guess we'd better time our vacations, etc, right...