Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'decay'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Official Buildings
    • GM Hall
    • City Hall
    • Website News
    • Public Test Board
  • Back Streets
    • Town Square
    • Community Assistance
    • Village Recruitment Center
    • Suggestions & Ideas
    • The Creative Commons
    • Wood Scraps
  • Wurm Unlimited
    • Unlimited Discussion
    • Server Listings & Advertisement
    • Unlimited Modding
    • Technical Issues
  • Freedom Isles
    • Celebration
    • Deliverance
    • Exodus
    • Independence
    • Pristine
    • Release
    • Xanadu
    • Freedom Isles Market
  • Maintenance Buildings
    • Technical Issues
    • Server Bugs
    • Client Bugs
    • Model and Sound Bugs
    • Other Bugs and Issues
    • Wurmpedia / Wiki Maintenance

Found 53 results

  1. Lanterns in inventory DO decay when they are not used. Could this stop for the unlit lanterns, pretty please.
  2. Assuming: No regard for cost, cast availability, shatter chance etc. That you have a choice between a tool with either perfectly equal WoA+CoC or the same level BoTD Eg. 70woa + 70coc *or* 70botd Each time you use the tool you get a "roll" that determines whether or not each enchant decays, higher enchant= less probable, lower enchant= more probable (this is at least how WU code seems to indicate the "system" works) Which "set up" provides the best probability of avoiding enchant decay over the long haul? Or which would you find preferable and why (remember that cost etc is no object!)? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here is my theoretical thinking, using made up numbers but which should show the general "gist"/trend of what we would expect to see: If using BoTD: P(s) [No enchant decay] = 3/4 (75%) P(f) [enchant decay] = 1/4 (25%) If using CoC+Woa Depends somewhat on your definition of "success" and "failure" Overall you have 4 possible outcomes If "success" (situation #1) is defined as "neither decaying" *or alternately* "neither -or- only one decaying" (without regard to which, coc or woa) P(s) ["neither decaying"] = 9/16 (56.25%) P(s) [ "neither -or- only one decaying" (without regard to which, coc or woa) = 9/16+ 6/16 = 15/16 (93.75%) P(f) [ "both woa and coc take decay"] 1/16 = (6.25%) In which case having Coc/Woa greatly increases chance of "success" / lessens risk of "failure" If "success" (situation #2) means that "neither decay" or "neither decay and woa does not decay) P(s) [no decay on both or at least not on woa] = 9/16 +3/16 = 12/16 =3/4= 75% P(f) [both took decay, or woa took decay] = 1/16 + 3/16 = 4/16 =1/4 = 25% In which case you theoretically are starting on even ground, however It is also important to consider the fact that once an enchant decays the probability of further enchant decay increases and the process only snowballs from there. If botd decays..you loose "effect of both coc and woa" at the same time, and increase the likelihood of further decay for both moving forward. Even in "success situation #2" you are no worse off than you are with Botd, but as a consolation prize probably are fairing better over all. (Not putting all your eggs in one basket..) Therefore I would propose that theoretically, in terms of preservation of enchant: WoA+CoC "should" outperform BoTD (keeping the "conditions" set forth at the top of this post in mind) Practically speaking - there are any number of reasons why someone would pick one set up over the other (price, availability, etc..), and "rng" is a cold-hearted unpredictable monster. So what do you all think or propose? (Or have I made some error in my calculations, or overlooked something?) Edit to say I didn't spot any other previous threads on this specific topic, if one already exists I'd certainly take a link. --Also-- I suppose "theoretically" you *could* define success only in that neither woa or coc strength is decreased, and any loss whatsoever is a "failure" .. in which case maybe botd looks to have better numbers. A riskier game.. and I'm not sure if the cumulative effect of "failure" when it does eventually happen outweighs the initial boost.. but maybe.
  3. Honey does not naturally decay. Why go through so many realistic things, ruin food fast if we carry it, add a pantry to store food longer (if we had snow which is more rare than supreme salt for 42 days) and THEN make honey something that decays. Seriously this one just bothers me. I feel i would lose some self respect if i had to suggest something so obvious, so i just want to know why. So Why?
  4. In Item.Poll(), specifically the section related to wine's "positive decay", there is a bonus value based on the wine being in a small wine barrel, that barrel's rarity, and whether or not that barrel is made out of oak. However, that variable never seems to be used! The variable ought to be declared at the beginning of the "if (this.template.positiveDecay)" block, so that it can be used in the "positive decay" call to setQualityLevel(). That function call then would need to be modified to take that bonus into account. This is, of course, all assuming that this bonus is intended to work, and has not been dummied out intentionally.
  5. First off I think bridges are a wonderful addition to the game. I have made use of many that make getting from point A to point B much quicker and it is nice that the Devs decided to lower decay rates and base it on usage, however, I have run into a couple of serious issues with off deed bridges. Although not all builders do this, some make use of buildings for the support structure between the arches of multi-span bridges or as the foundation for the start/end of a bridge. I have in my travels I have come across bridges designed this way that have suffered decay on the floor/ceiling of the buildings that are incorporated into the bridge structure. This essentially renders the bridge useless once it decays completely. Unlike the rest of the bridge, buildings can't be repaired by just anybody. I'm not trying to suggest how bridges should be built, these are just my observations as I travel throughout Wurm. Skyefox Mayor: Albia Estates
  6. Sermons at the Amish Sanctuary Hi Wurmians! Another week hard at work in the kitchens of Wurm, with the in-house testing nearing completion before public testing on a brand new test server! We'll be resetting the test server map for a brand new one prior to the public testing of cooking, something new to explore! (In house testing doesn't mean the system is bug free, and we'll need your help testing it when it goes public, it just means that you're slightly less likely to die when lighting an oven... slightly) Get decorative! As part of our improvements raised by the fountain pan removal, I'm pleased to announce what is most likely the final change brought in to balance out the functionality lost from the removal of these pans. ***Drum roll** With the upcoming cooking update, all decorative items on a deed with over 30 days upkeep will no longer take decay ticks! That's right, decoration items, such as banners, chests, anvils, barrels, statues, etc will all be decay free as long as deed upkeep remains over 30 days! Under 30 days decay ticks will occur as normal, and use of items will damage them too, of course. Hopefully this makes decorating your deed much more enjoyable, and removes the need to spend hours repairing things if you don't play often. Measuring up This weeks teaser covers a new utensil, the Measuring jug! To aid with measuring precise amounts of liquids, a measuring jug tool has been added. This allows a pre-set amount of liquid to be taken out of a larger amount. The measuring jug is a pottery item, with the initial version being made from clay with a hand. Creation mechanics are the same as all other pottery items. To use the measuring jug, r-click on it and select ‘Set volume to’. This allows setting the capacity to any of the following weights: 0.01 kg 0.02 kg 0.05 kg 0.1 kg 0.2 kg 0.5 kg 1kg 2kg 5kg 10kg Note that Wurm uses weights for everything involving cooking; to simplify matters, it is assumed that all liquids have a density of 1 kilogram per litre. Once the volume of the measuring jug has been set, it may be activated and filled from a source of liquid; it will then contain the selected amount (assuming the source contains at least that much). Several iterations (using different volume settings) may be necessary to get the right amount for a particular recipe. The measuring jug must be empty to adjust its volume. Humpty Dump-ty Not forgotten, we're working on setting up an automated system with regularly updated dumps! This means the setup is taking a little longer, but they should be up soon, here's a sneak peak of Xanadu! Community Content. Nicrolis was showing off his graphics capabilities and snapped this awesome screenshot maxed out on graphics with 4k resolution, I have to say it really does show how beautiful and serene Wurm can be! Open the spoiler to check it out. That's it for this week though, we'll have some more news for you next week, so stay tuned! Retrograde & the Wurm team.
  7. Today I had to mine out several tiles in a mine that used to have the floor reinforced. This was a rare event in the past. If the Dev's have to collapse reinforced floor tiles then at least give a warning . Make rotting reinforced tile show maybe . We can not examine the reinforced tiles to see decay, therefore we cant do anything to prevent the collapse. If someone wants to remove the reinforcement of a floor tile it is easily done. Recommend that reinforced tiles prevent collapses on their tile to a much higher degree than they do lately as this is a simple solution. Who gets harmed by reinforced floors not getting collapsed ?
  8. Conventional wisdom dictates that cedar items decay more slowly, but that cedar containers do nothing to slow down the decay of their contents. Turns out this is actually wrong, and cedar containers do, in fact, slow down the decay of their contents, in addition to cedar items themselves taking less damage. In fact, it stacks. A cedar item, or an item in a cedar container, decays more slowly. A cedar item inside a cedar container decays even more slowly. In fact, the more cedar containers are nested inside each other, the better the effect. For example, an item inside a cedar bucket, inside a cedar large barrel, inside a cedar raft, inside a cedar wagon takes quite significantly less damage than normal. For some background on this and where I got the idea, see here: Of course, the decay code is essentially a basilisk and scares the hell out of me, and empirical data is always a good idea, so I've run a couple tests over the past several days. If you don't care to read lots of numbers and rambling statements, feel free to skip to "Overall Conclusions" at the bottom of this post. Methodology: Removed hundreds of cooked meat from a food storage bin, then placed them in various off-deed, outdoor containers in a secure area. I then checked back a certain time later and noted how much decay was on the meat in each container, and how much (if any) had already completely been destroyed due to 100+ decay damage. Meat QL is not quite the same from test to test, so specific decay values can't really be compared between them. Container QL does not matter, but is listed anyway for the sake of completeness, and I've tried to use roughly equivalent QL of containers anyway. Damage is 0 when not specified. Also note: "Cedar count" below means how many containers in the chain are cedar. For example, meat inside a cedar bucket inside a firwood raft inside a cedar caravel would have a cedar count of 2. Test 1: Two barrels, one cedar and one fir, placed on the ground off-deed and outdoors. Each barrel contains one cedar bucket, three cotton satchels, and the rest of the barrel filled with meat. Initial meat QL not recorded but was likely 46.61QL. Meat left to ripen for approximately 2 or 3 days (not certain; all that's important is all the meat in this test decayed for the same amount of time). Please note that average damage of meat inside a container may be very misleading if some of the meat has already decayed away entirely, since those are not factored into the average; a container's meat stack may have significantly more decay than another even with lower average damage, if it has suffered more total loss of meat items, since the average is only the average damage of REMAINING meat in the stack. Results: Cedar Barrel (41.65 QL) 61 meat (Cedar count: 1, avg. 37.53 dmg): 7 - 0 dmg, 11 - 8.58 dmg, 9 - 17.97 dmg, 8 - 42.91 dmg, 17 - 57.94 dmg, 9 - 78.34 dmg, 0 destroyed Cedar Small Bucket (30.93 QL) 47 meat (Cedar count: 2, avg. 18.30 dmg): 13 - 0 dmg, 11 - 8.58 dmg, 8 - 25.74 dmg, 15 - 37.30 dmg, 0 destroyed Cotton Satchel (10.49 QL) 71 meat (Cedar count: 1, avg. 28.78 dmg): 8 - 0 dmg, 23 - 8.58 dmg, 13 - 17.97 dmg, 9 - 42.91 damage, 9 - 57.94 dmg, 0 destroyed Cotton Satchel (10.49 QL) 71 meat (Cedar count: 1, avg. 33.66 dmg): 9 - 0 dmg, 16 - 8.58 dmg, 9 - 17.97 dmg, 13 - 42.91 dmg, 17 - 57.94 dmg, 7 - 78.34 dmg, 0 destroyed Cotton Satchel (10.49 QL) 71 meat (Cedar count: 1, avg. 37.98 dmg): 9 - 0 dmg, 16 - 8.58 dmg, 6 - 17.97 dmg, 6 - 42.91 dmg, 23 - 57.94 dmg, 11 - 78.34 dmg, 0 destroyed Fir Barrel (42.37 QL) 43 meat (Cedar count: 0, avg. of remaining 39.13 dmg): 3 - 0 dmg, 11 - 8.58 dmg, 7 - 17.97 dmg, 8 - 28.43 dmg, 4 - 68.85 dmg, 10 - 96.03 dmg, 18 destroyed (29.5% loss) Cedar Small Bucket (31.70 QL) 47 meat (Cedar count: 1, avg. 30.95 dmg): 10 - 0 dmg, 12 - 8.58 dmg, 5 - 17.97 dmg, 4 - 42.91 dmg, 8 - 57.94 dmg, 8 - 78.34 dmg, 0 destroyed Cotton Satchel (10.49 QL) 56 meat (Cedar count: 0, avg. of remaining 37.20 dmg): 5 - 0 dmg, 15 - 8.58 dmg, 13 - 17.97 dmg, 6 - 28.43 dmg, 3 - 68.65 dmg, 14 - 96.03 dmg, 15 destroyed (21.1% loss) Cotton Satchel (10.49 QL) 57 meat (Cedar count: 0, avg. of remaining 38.36 dmg): 8 - 0 dmg, 13 - 8.58 dmg, 13 - 17.97 dmg, 3 - 28.43 dmg, 6 - 68.65 dmg, 14 - 96.03 dmg, 14 destroyed (19.7% loss) Cotton Satchel (10.49 QL) 49 meat (Cedar count: 0, avg. of remaining 35.59 dmg): 6 - 0 dmg, 12 - 8.58 dmg, 10 - 17.97 dmg, 7 - 28.43 dmg, 3 - 68.65 dmg, 11 - 96.03 dmg, 22 destroyed (31.0% loss) Tentative conclusions from test 1: Time between decay damage ticks is somewhat highly randomized. Higher sample size/more tests needed to determine if time between decay ticks is influenced by cedar. Damage due to a single decay tick is entirely deterministic, as only certain values were encountered. Damage amount definitely appears to depend on how many cedar containers "deep" an item is stored within (including, presumably, the item itself being cedar). For example, the same damage "steps" are encountered in the meat stack inside a cotton satchel inside a cedar barrel, as encountered in the meat stack inside a cedar bucket inside a fir barrel, because each has a single cedar container somewhere up the chain (cedar count: 1). Meanwhile, the meat stack inside the cedar bucket inside a cedar barrel (cedar count: 2) has different values from the rest. Cedar containers definitely slow decay. With a sample size of a few hundred meat, and the amount of consistency we see here, this is essentially certain. The only meat stacks with any totally-lost items are ones with a cedar count of 0. Multiple nested cedar containers certainly seem to slow decay further. Stacks with a cedar count greater of 2 seem to take less damage on average than stacks with a cedar count of 1, and the damage tick sizes are different in magnitude (see #2 above), but more testing is needed. These results were pretty encouraging, so I decided to do another test. Test 2: Testing to see results of more varied cedar container nesting. One fir barrel placed on the ground off-deed and outdoors, containing three cotton satchels filled with meat. A cedar wagon also parked nearby, containing: 85 meat and one cedar raft. Cedar raft inside wagon contains three cedar buckets and three cotton satchels, all filled with meat. Each barrel contains one cedar bucket, three cotton satchels, and the rest of the barrel filled with meat. Initial meat QL equal to 45.21. Meat left to ripen for approximately 3 days, 18 hours. Please note in this test that the starting meat QL is not the same as in the prior test, and it was left to decay for a longer period, so please do not compare numbers between the two tests! Don't do it! I mean it! Fir Barrel (42.37 QL, 2.0 dmg) Cotton Satchel (10.49 QL, 9.5 dmg) 35 meat (Cedar count: 0, avg. of remaining 37.52 dmg): 1 - 0 dmg, 2 - 8.85 dmg, 5 - 18.55 dmg, 7 - 29.42 dmg, 11 - 41.95 dmg, 8 - 57.19 dmg, 1 - 77.86 dmg, 36 destroyed (50.7% loss) Cotton Satchel (10.49 QL, 9.5 dmg) 39 meat (Cedar count: 0, avg. of remaining 39.36 dmg): 3 - 8.85 dmg, 6 - 18.55 dmg, 12 - 29.42 dmg, 4 - 41.95 dmg, 10 - 57.19 dmg, 1 - 70.78 dmg, 3 - 77.86 dmg, 32 destroyed (45.1% loss) Cotton Satchel (10.09 QL, 9.9 dmg) 31 meat (Cedar count: 0, avg. of remaining 33.54 dmg): 2 - 8.85 dmg, 4 - 18.55 dmg, 15 - 29.42 dmg, 7 - 41.95 dmg, 1 - 57.19 dmg, 2 - 77.86 dmg, 40 destroyed (56.3% loss) Cedar Wagon (40.482 QL, 7.54 dmg) 70 meat (Cedar count: 1, avg. of remaining 43.10 dmg): 2 - 0 dmg, 14 - 8.85 dmg, 11 - 18.55 dmg, 7 - 29.42 dmg, 3 - 41.95 dmg, 3 - 44.24 dmg, 11 - 60.10 dmg, 19 - 82.28 dmg, 15 destroyed (17.6% loss) Cedar Raft (16.72 QL) Cedar Bucket (30.93 QL) 47 meat (Cedar count: 3, avg. 17.95 dmg): 9 - 0 dmg, 12 - 8.85 dmg, 5 - 17.69 dmg, 4 - 18.55 dmg, 11 - 28.44 dmg, 6 - 40.81 dmg, 0 destroyed Cedar Bucket (31.82 QL) 47 meat (Cedar count: 3, avg. 20.15 dmg): 3 - 0 dmg, 12 - 8.85 dmg, 9 - 17.69 dmg, 6 - 18.55 dmg, 10 - 28.44 dmg, 7 - 40.81 dmg, 0 destroyed Cedar Bucket (31.70 QL) 47 meat (Cedar count: 3, avg. 18.11 dmg): 8 - 0 dmg, 10 - 8.85 dmg, 6 - 17.69 dmg, 6 - 18.55 dmg, 12 - 28.44 dmg, 5 - 40.81 dmg, 0 destroyed Cotton Satchel (10.49 QL) 71 meat (Cedar count: 2, avg. 23.96 dmg): 8 - 0 dmg, 22 - 8.85 dmg, 10 - 18.55 dmg, 6 - 26.54 dmg, 3 - 29.42 dmg, 9 - 38.59 dmg, 11 - 52.99 dmg, 2 - 71.81 dmg, 0 destroyed Cotton Satchel (10.49 QL) 71 meat (Cedar count: 2, avg. 33.68 dmg): 2 - 0 dmg, 11 - 8.85 dmg, 14 - 18.55 dmg, 5 - 26.54 dmg, 3 - 29.42 dmg, 17 - 38.59 dmg, 11 - 52.99 dmg, 8 - 71.81 dmg, 0 destroyed Cotton Satchel (10.49 QL) 71 meat (Cedar count: 2, avg. 25.94 dmg): 7 - 0 dmg, 15 - 8.85 dmg, 14 - 18.55 dmg, 4 - 26.54 dmg, 9 - 29.42 dmg, 10 - 38.59 dmg, 9 - 52.99 dmg, 3 - 71.81 dmg, 0 destroyed Tentative conclusions from test 2: Conclusions from test 1 seem to have held water. Higher cedar count definitely seems to matter, possibly without bound. Meat stacks with cedar count 0 suffered much more item loss than meat stacks with cedar count 1. Stacks with cedar count of 2 or 3 suffered no item loss, but every stack with cedar count 2 suffered greater total damage, and greater maximum damage on any single item, than every stack with cedar count 3. More testing may still be necessary to determine if time between decay ticks is affected by cedar count. That was a lot of numbers and words to type, so... let's finish this up, shall we? Overall conclusions: Cedar containers slow down the decay of their contents. The more cedar containers an item is nested in, going all the way up to the highest parent container, the more the decay of that item is slowed. For example, an item inside a cedar bucket, inside a willow raft, inside a cedar knarr (2 cedar containers), will decay more slowly than an item inside a cedar bucket in inventory, a birch knarr, etc. (1 cedar container). If you want to slow decay on an item but don't have a magical chest, you can't bank it, and you can't or don't want to put it in the inventory of yourself or a storage alt, your best bet is probably to nest as many cedar containers as possible ([[[[[Bucket] Large Barrel] Raft] Huge Tub] Vehicle]?), inside a building, on-deed. Amphorae also slow decay of contents, as confirmed by staff (see linked post above). According to WU code, the effect is the same in magnitude as it is for a cedar wooden container, and implemented the same way, so you can still benefit from nesting an amphora inside a cedar container or vice versa. I may test to verify this in the future. Cedar is, more than ever, the obvious choice for pretty much anything that serves as a container, whether it's a ship, a chest, a barrel, or anything else you can make out of wood. Almond milk, while vegan-friendly and not unhealthy, should not be construed as a nutritional replacement for animal milk, as the former is lacking in many important nutrients found in the latter, especially protein content. I am a very tired man.
  9. it would be very helpful if a mod could be custom created to speed up decaying items and creature corpses off deed. This would be great for polling timers taking so long from the clutter of random junk left laying around including dirt piles, locks, tree stumps, dead animals... etc.. Might be helpful to create a .properties for items admins want to whitelist from the increased rate (if possible) Thanks in advance.
  10. I find it to be troublesome that there are so many large carts, wagons and boats littering the place, especially the ones that end up on your deed, and you then can't do anything about them. First off it looks bad, secondly it probably doesn't help server performance. Note that this is mainly about abandoned vehicles. Basically, I would like various vehicles to be removed faster than they are currently, and I have a few ideas about how to do this: Vehicles that belong to players with no active premium decay at accelerated speed. Vehicles that belong to players that have not been online for a month begin to rapidly decay. Vehicles that have not moved in a long time decay at an accelerated speed. Horses attached to wagons/carts will starve/break free if the wagon/cart has not been used for a long time(2-4 weeks?). Vehicles that do not belong to a villager of the deed they are parked on will decay rapidly if they have been there for a set amount of time(1 week?) Boats parked in shallow water take damage at an increasing rate. The above are just ideas, and I think anything that would get rid of these things are a huge improvement, regardless of what that might be(as long as it doesn't force people to repair their vehicles constantly if they are being used). Another acceptable solution would be for locks to decay quickly using any of the above, so that we can at least move the things. Currently on my deed I have a boatload(no pun) of boats, carts, wagons etcetera that are wasting space, probably causing lag and look horrible. I feel it also makes little sense that I can litter other players deeds with boats, large carts and wagons without them being able to do anything about it. I am aware that GM's will currently assist with these issues, however it seems a waste of both their time and the players to assist with such tasks. Noevi
  11. Currently wine barrels are very nice decorative items, the trouble is that if you keep wine in a good QL barrel it does not age well at all. A bit of a contradiction really and thus the following two changes are proposed: 1. Allow material contained in wine barrels to decay as if offdeed. 2. Accelerate this decay based on wine barrel QL (QL% increase)
  12. I've heard quite a few stories of how players have been waiting for that #%&?# house to finally rot, so they could deed the spot it was occupying. I've been in that situation a few times too myself. So how about being able to buy an item at the nearest trader called "Altar of Accelerated Rot" (or something to that effect), which when planted in an off-deed house missing at least one wall would speed the decay of said house? If the owner of the house should happen to come back in time, he can simply right-click->reset on the *item* and it will go poof and reset the extra damage it caused. When a player enters a house in which such an *item* is active he gets a message saying it. The extra decay caused should increase proportionally with the percentage of walls missing (1 wall missing = small effect. 1 wall still standing = big effect) Price could be maybe 2 silver
  13. I am friends with two players that have not been on in over 200 days. Three to four weeks ago their deed dropped. Glacial Glimmer Grape..I went to check it out within two hours of it happening. The stone buidings and walls had almost NO damages on them and were at 60ql + not to mention a bridge they had built when bridges first arrived. I checked it last night and EVERYTHING but a pallisade gate were gone...just like someone had come in and dropped everthing in some other game. That decayed WAYYYYY TO fast for in game mechanics in my opinion. I know this because I am a deed hunter and I know even with the recent bugs there cannot be any bug in game that could cause the uniform of a decay. I am wondering if someone has a bug or program that is doing this. I have been at a site that another player showed up..and when that crucial wall dropped within 5 min of that player showing acitivity the game crashes three times in a roll, in fact. Whats up with this..I have some other buildings wood and stone( off deed in fact and same or less quality) that have taken several months to decay halfway down, even with the recent bugs that Wurm showed us two months ago. Please check into this..I personally wonder if you can still catapults buildings into destruction..or use to ...SOMETHING is up though...this area should only at best be showing 40% decay on everything. And I know the owners have not been on in over 200+ days. Thanks.
  14. Please apply absentee decay to ships and carts too. There are so many abandoned all over slowly ticking down.
  15. Off-Deed Building Decay...is once again bugged. Since the last round of this bug, I've repaired a ton of longhouses and structures off-deed back to <10 damage. They're back up to 30-50 damage in the last week or two (these are all 85-90ql stone structures). A gatehouse I built less than 2 months ago at 93ql walls is up to 30 damage. This is consistent in all places checked - both buildings I am the owner of and not, my own and others. Once again broken. The last bug like this cost me several days of playtime to repair and over 20k repair bricks. I can't do it again - please, when you fix, run an update on the database to delete 30-50 damage off of off-deed buildings...or just all buildings, since on-deed don't take decay in most cases. Do something, this is crazy sad. Or a good ploy to have us drop more deeds...which I would gladly do if I could. ALLOW 1 TILE PERIM DEEDS OR FIX THIS INSANE BUG. I do not want to spend all my game time every day making repair bricks and repairing house walls that, prior to this bug, would accrue 10 damage PER CALENDAR YEAR and have, in the last 3 months, accrued 7-8 YEARS worth of damage because of these bugs. Not fair, not cool, frustrating this loyal customer.
  16. So I started a building about 4-6 weeks ago and never got to finishing the 3rd floor till today. I have 6 unfinished floor plans and several wall plans. I cut my planks and went about building the floors first. I have a habit of checking a finished floor or wall for ql once it is finished, and I was surprised to see my finished floor looking like this, [20:45:55] QL = 27.706396, dam=20.0. I am not sure if this is a feature or a bug, and have never had it happen to me before, I have left parts of buildings unfinished for weeks as I tend to hop from project to project. This is a building on deed and with extra silvers in the coffer to keep things happy. I thought it was a glitched so I built two more floors to have the same results. After that I went and destroyed all the other old floor/wall plans I had and re-planned them. Finished the next floor on a fresh plan with a finished result of 0.00 damage.
  17. Right now, hedges allow us to essentially plant permanent fences that never decay. This seems a little inconsistent with how the rest of Wurm works, and is a total pain when clearing up formerly-deeded areas, since they are just as hard to destroy as other fence types. So, I suggest one or both of the following: Let hedges decay (probably rather slowly), and make them easy to repair by watering them like you do with flowerpots and similar objects. Allow hedges to be easily removed with a shovel or similar implement, in one action, assuming the player has permissions (of course).
  18. Not a huge deal, but seems to me if a meal lasts months in the SMC, some flowers ought to as well. Flowers are taking decay hits within a day.
  19. Six years ago I built my first stone building - it was QL35 and it lasted almost 8 months - five years ago I built several 1x1 stone buildings at QL 55 and they lasted several years before damage levels hit 60. 6 months ago I built several buildings QL 75 and they lasted less than 6 months before decay levels hit 60 at the same time I built some stone walls at QL 75 and they have only 22 damage. 2 days ago I built a stone building QL 85 and it already has 3 damage. I left the trowel on the ground outside after building this building and it still has 0 damage. it doesn’t make much sense that a stone wall that isn't part of a building lasts 3 times longer than a stone wall that is part of a building if their QL's are the same. Why is the decay on buildings so much higher than any other object save dirt in the game?
  20. Not sure if this took place before the patch or not, but I have some crates inside a boat, on a deed which have lost some of the quantity in the last month or two. I didnt check just before the patch so I dont know if the loss happened before or after the patch but thought I would share it just in case.
  21. Found this while poking around in an extracted Server.jar... \server\com\wurmonline\server\TimeConstants.class can someone make use of this? maybe the long awaited decay mod? Or am I hoping up the wrong tree? public static final long BASEDECAY = 1382400L; public static final long DECAYTIME_QL = 28800L; public static final long DECAYTIME_NEVER = 9223372036854775807L; public static final long DECAYTIME_GLASS = 12096000L; public static final long DECAYTIME_STEEL = 12096000L; public static final long DECAYTIME_WOOD = 9072000L; public static final long DECAYTIME_FOOD = 172800L; public static final long DECAYTIME_FOOD_CONSERVED = 604800L; public static final long DECAYTIME_CLOTHING = 3024000L; public static final long DECAYTIME_STONE = 12096000L; public static final long DECAYTIME_CORPSE = 86400L; public static final long DECAYTIME_MAGIC = 12096000L; public static final long DECAYTIME_VALUABLE = 12096000L; public static final long DECAYTIME_POTTERY = 12096000L; public static final long DECAYTIME_LEATHER = 3024000L; public static final long DECAYTIME_CORROSION = 3024000L; public static final long DECAYTIME_RAWMATERIAL = 86401L; public static final long DECAYTIME_FLOWERS = 1382400L; public static final long TENTDECAY = 1814400000L;
  22. I think the decay rate of on deed Marble Planters is way too high, A q38 has damage 20 already and these are not repairable !!!
  23. A handful of days ago I was able to store food in a water barrel on my large cart and use it for a few days as it slowly decayed in a reliable manner. I knew it would go from no decay to perhaps 39, then say, 59 then maybe another twenty to 79 then poof. Last night I logged off and had several meals at zero decay. This morning they are gone, decayed away in nine hours, from zero decay to totally gone. Is this the future decay rate of WURM? I've seen nothing in any news about accelerated decay rates yet that is what appears to have been done. Can someone in the know PLEASE inform the community as to whether or not we now have to suffer faster decay, therefore producing more work for us? I thank you.
  24. Before you comment please read my post till the end. Can we please get rid off all those abandoned ships / carts / wagons? Can every ship, that hasn't been used for over 6 months (3 months? a year?) decay much faster (3x? 5x? 10x? 20x?)? Shouldn't be too hard to code. Just add a flag to every "vehicle" with single date of last embarking as a commander. Ships, that hasn't been embarked for longer than half year loosing this flag (same carts / wagons). Since January 2016 make every vehicle without flag to decay on multiplied rate (you can use in-game voting to choose multiplier). Thank you for your attention.
  25. Recently, the developers changed the current game mechanic where weapon enchants never decayed with use to include the decay typical of tools and other enchants. Public news of this was recently broken by Jberg in the thread HERE. Apparently the change has been live for some time but never mentioned. My opinion of this is to revert this change ASAP, weapons are a necessity in survival of Wurm Online, allowing you to gather food and protect yourself. With the option of obtaining multiple casts on weapons, it will become increasingly difficult to maintain these enchants, as most weapons are recasted in a lengthy process with current casting being almost completely random this change will severely hurt the player base, and so I am suggesting this changed be removed ASAP. What are your views on this? Please post below and vote in the poll. Fooli