Roger Hellers
-
Content Count
174 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Roger Hellers
-
-
*sigh* I don't think that this "conversation" here leads to anything.....Wurm is the only sandbox of it's kind I mean like a real sandbox, most other "sandboxes" are no real sandboxes or are restricted in ways, that alot of players not like....(like full hardcore pvp with full loot, full destruction, thievery and so on.
so I really believe that those who say they want skyscrapers, who wants unrealistic business buildings and so on and physically unbelievable mushroom buildings....I think you have the wrong expectations on wurm as this sandbox sand is of a special consistency, made by Rolf, made from HIS view of how this game should be and I'm pretty sure he will add more restrictions soon anyway.....it just....began.
So which is it? You say Wurm is unlike other sandboxes with restrictions that alot of players don't like but at the same want a restricion which alot of people already stated they don't want?
I'm an artist in real life, I've studied games (like on an university) and I studied games on my own and I've seen alot of different things out there and I know rules for what we emphasize as BEAUTY. There are only slight differences between people actually......
Don't take this personally but I am sorry but this is BS.
There are no rules for what everyone sees as beauty. Take a few random strangers from streets and I assure you they will have different opinions. Sure they will also have certain things two or more agree on but not everything not by a long shot.
A.e. every now and then a thread pops us to allow people to switch to old graphix because they found those prettier.
-
I think that people should be able to be as creative as they like, within whatever boundaries they are given by sane rules. And yes, sandboxes must have rules. The current building system simply allows insanity.
There are already build rules in place, there are already boundaries. You don't want them to follow sane rules, you want them to follow your rules. Calling it following sane rules is just trying to mask the fact that you find the rules lacking.
But if you're so worried about immersion you can always start following the path of insanity and RP that the buildings are hallucinations.
*edit added smiley to make sure the last bit is seen as the joke it is *edit*
-
Randomly generated names like bred animals: Yes.
Allow naming: NO
Tower guards aren't owned by anyone, they're public defenders. Wurm has enough drama going on without neighboors fighting over whether the guard should be named Stabby McStickem or Slicy Slim.
-
i dont feel that would work, people have paid for the feature of being able to lower for ship canal/tunnel projects for 4 years. thats alot of money sunk into said projects. yes the wand was a gift, but its a gift you pay for, and so features similar to it should also be paid for imo.
Just because it was a paid feature because the devs didn't implement it in another way really isn't an argument against it. Transfer between pvp & pve used to be a paid feature as well.
If we moved away from the idea of a variation of the wand, which is a unique gift, to an item such as a mining/drilling dredge then I think we are looking at a feature request that may see the light of day given its importance in the creation of now standard practice canals.
Just add the ability for people to modify the rocksurface under water by other in game means, a new tool or whatever. Don't add it as a new money item with reduced ability.
The folks with the wands keep their unique item. However it's function becomes a convenience instead of a non-obtainable one.
Making it possible by adding ingame tools doesn't make it obsolete. The paid version is easier (if you have / rent a wand).
Adding a new instant magic item will cause anger in those who actually got the wand ages ago even if the new variant would be inferior.
-
Just add the ability for people to modify the rocksurface under water by other in game means, a new tool or whatever. Don't add it as a new money item with reduced ability.
The folks with the wands keep their unique item. However it's function becomes a convenience instead of a non-obtainable one.
-
I couldn't find the most recent thread in the first few pages. So instead of necro-ing i started a new thread about this again.
I know this is something that has been asked several times before. However I don't know if it was ever proposed in the following manner:
Have animal enter as passenger. (Animal types may need to be limited)
Lead the animal -> right click the boat (with rope active) -> select option to have the animal enter as passenger.
To exit:
Activate rope -> right click boat -> select option the option to "take out" the first animal found when going through the passenger seats.
I can only assume things about the code but I could see the entering of animals part being quite close to that of hitching (which would probably use animal only "seats")
-
Surface mining is fine the way it is. It's a nice challenge to sculpt what you want.
Even if the raise method does work above ground (not tried this as wiki said cave floors) it's still more griefing prone as concrete is not a 1 action item (like dig a dirt somewhere else to drop) but 10 (without taking into account how you get the ash).
Also droppping dirt is not always a valid option.
-
No deed, no final say. It's harsh but if you don't deed it and it's not in your enclosure it's tough luck. It's not griefing per rules and the code of conduct has nothing on this either. Having been there before them means nothing.
I've had this happen to myself and a friends as well. You have two choices:
1 - you relocate (which we did in the end)
2 - you deal with it and stop complaining.
*edit spelling*
-
Stating you don't want your privacy invaded is far from paranoia, if anything wanting to be able to scan everyone is.
You havent understood what you have read in my post: I never wrote it was a positive idea, but before screaming about privacy invasion, point out to the OP that his idea can never work for mechanical reasons, your personal choice/feelings are immaterial since the idea could never function, since IP's are no more than an address the server is sending information to at that moment, they are not static.
I understood your post. My first already stated most of it as well about IP never being able to be used.
I gave the mechanical reasons why it couldn't work as well as the privacy statement (and not because of IP). Giving the privacy reason is not immaterial as it gives him feedback on the idea of an account linking "service" for players.
Just giving the mechanical limitations will only counter this current suggested implementation of the idea. Giving additional reasons (like privacy) also shows him peoples disposition in general towards the idea itself (not the implementation).
Calling it paranoia when people bring in more arguments than you deem required to counter a certain idea won't make you any friends.
-
Lots of MMO's, Online shooters and MMORPGS, also RTS games I have played have this: You can see online players, and the name of the character they are using. If you really are such a goon that you have to hide from ppl on an online game thats your issue, the OP just wants a way to find out if its YOU who is stealing his stuff.
Actually these show the alts on the same account which is a completely different thing. The idea here is to try and link accounts based on a shared IP. These are two are in no way comparable.
Its not a great idea, but also to all naysayers claiming PRIVACY infringement about their IP's: The OP never mentioned any PLAYER being able to see ANYONE's IP, simply to see if they had the same one.
The reason privacy is mentioned by me for example and possiblity others has nothing to do with knowing IP's (he mentioned the server would do the equation not the client). My privacy point is that no other PLAYER will ever have the need or right to know whether I play more than 1 account except in the cases where I decide that I want to tell them.
Criticise the faults in his idea, dont just spout your paranoia.
Stating you don't want your privacy invaded is far from paranoia, if anything wanting to be able to scan everyone is.
-
But we are talking about a situation where you are meeting another person ingame, on a virtual city street, and still not letting the other person know who you are. This is not a private business transaction, but a very public arena. Why shouldn't the other person know who they are really dealing with?
It's the same reason you have your conversations censored in kchat. You may be sitting in the privacy of your home, but your character is in a very public place and has to watch his language.
You know that already, you are dealing with the guy you are looking at. What you now want to know is whether he is known as someoneelse in another place. Which is not something you know in RL and have not business knowing in game.
-
This idea came to me last night, please let me know your views on it.
I would like to have a new priest spell created or maybe even add this to the Knowledge meditation path. It's what I call Reveal Doppelganger (R&D). It would be a spell to determine whether a player is an alt of some other player. How it could work is by comparing the IP address of two player names, then getting a feedback in % of how often the two names log in under the same IP.
IP based will never work properly. There are too many limitations to it. As already stated before a single IP-address can have multiple people playing behind it (people not alts).
IP addresses can be "faked" so the real ip-address of said player will not match that of a griefer. This is most likely something a lot of experienced griefers will use.
A faked IP could give you a false result whereby you damn a perfectly legit playing person because the IP-address-check said it also belongs to a griefer.
Trying to come up to deal with a griefer is nice but this is not the way. Also as stated before it is really none of anyones business if I have an alt or not. I am not required to tell everyone that I play more than one account.
This is called privacy and should be respected.
-
Honestly when you're in a community and you're a player that can't play a lot, like I find myself in... I feel so useless, like in the 2-3 hours I have to play I can't get enough skill gain to have an impact. At least with this system I could occasionally provide something very useful to the community.
The problem with the suggestion is there is no real difference in the role you play. You are still supplying the smith with something to improve. For the smith it's still a gain in time / reduction in effort for him to imp the tools supplied to him.
Your input still helps the smith ergo you can still feel like you are helping. A crit item doesn't change anything in the core of the work setup of supplier / worker.
The crit effect is not a simple change at all. Certainly not balacing wise in PvP, a crit item with 10% more dmg is going to cause all sort of drama in the Pvp scene and will become a must have item.
Programming wise it could well be that every skill tree has it's on creation code. There's no way to tell how much work it could be coding wise. This depends really heavely on the coding in place so far and it's optimization.
-
Can we just get the % removed from everything ?? - its not required
Only if a different way of telling you a success rate is put in place instead. Completely removing any indication of an items difficulty vs your skill is taking a mayor step back.
Just about any game out there has an indication of difficulty, be it a color coding system / percentage / small text. Removing this will only cause aggrivation as people will have no idea on what their chances are.
As a new player it would seriously stink to unknowingly try and make a 6% item with resources you gathered in the last fews hours and have them go poof in mere seconds.
Adding a text based indication of succes only makes it take more space ( a.e. "you feel very confident making this item" at > 80% chance). The percentage is a tiny message which gives players a good feel on whether you want to try and execute the action.
Make Wurm more user friendly not less.
-
*bump* Sales change regarding delivery / pickup
-
If you paid 5 years update, then yes, your buildings ondeed will last 5 years. Then they will start to rot.
This should never change.
Not going to argue anymore with you (fatboy) because your entire logic has more holes than a swiss cheese.
Then obviously you dont care about increaseing the population. You dont own that land. You are renting it. If ya quit i think you should loose your right to it if your not around to care for it. Your logic does 0 to help the game grow. Instead ya let the inactive deeds stay the way their doing, and Each day more n more land vanishs. You beleave wat ya want thought every1 has their own opinion, I am speaking my loud and clear and i shall do it till i see Rolfs opinion on the subject.
Call it renting call it owning doesn't matter. It's a contract between 2 parties which can't be undone by either one just because they feel like it.
Sorry to burst your bubble but if I rent a house in RL and don't live in it none can do anything about it since i am still paying for it.
And 30 is not always enough to deal with RL situations neither is 90 days. A.e. a soldier being sent on a tour might not even get the chance to log in for several months, or ending up in the hospital for an extended period, no money for internet connection due to being unemployed.
/*edit*/
You are already seeing Rolf opinion, he made it this way.
/*/edit*/
-
Does this effect PvE as well? Or just against players?
The check vs same players is obvious but not the first bit about dealing damage.
-
I did not say harassment to be acceptable what I am saying is we should be allowed to moderate our own chats. If needed they can always report but my chat shouldnt be moderated.
You already moderate your own chat. If you type something in village only those who are in the village can read it and thus are moderating it. They are the ones who can report behaviour. You really believe GM's are continously watching your village chat or PMs? This has been mentioned several times already.
This is why I already said that i really should read "chat rules apply in all chats".
Also it's not your chat. Unless you are pm-ing yourself on an alt there's always someone else present.
-
It should be the "burden" of the players to ignore the harassers. Its easier to type /ignore then /dev <reasoning> then get into a full conversation with a GM about whats going on. Also you only state women as your "point". So the chat rule should stay in place to protect only the women?
I'm pretty sure brash used woman as an example which you could have guessed just as well. The burden should not be on the one being harrased, the other person is violating the rules not him or her.
I don't have anything excessively offensive(also who is to judge what is excessively offensive the 20 yr career sailor or the 90yr old crocheting grandma) but chat rules ban the discussion of certain topics that players should be allowed to have.
The chat rules are placed by the one who owns and makes the game. If the rules ban the discussion of a certain topic obviously you are not allowed to have it. Pretty simple, same goes for laws in RL, you can disagree with them all you want you still have to abide.
Their is a difference between applying to everyone and applying to all chats. Applying to everyone can be taken in two ways, applying to everyone in the use of public and private channels or applying to everyone in just wurm generated channels(kingdom, local and ca).
Perhaps the wording should be different in the rules. Perhaps it should state that all chat will have to abide by the chat rules instead of all chats are moderated.
Moderated sounds like it's constantly being watched (which isn't the case). Saying rules still apply means I can still report you if you start sending me tells about anything which violates the rules and I do not want to hear.
Under no circumstance should anyone ever be allowed to harras someone through chat. It may not be the idea behind the poll but option number 2 is a sure way to create nice loopholes to abuse when it comes to harashment.
-
-
Might be becomes people are a bit more "see first comment later" where new features are concerned.
No offense to Rolf but everyone knows how long stuff can take to get put into Wurm.
-
Well I recently returned to wurm I like to say that the combat wounding is much nicer I don't fear getting killed every 5 minutes.
I understand that if you are very far from your deed that you can die and end up a long way from your body without any aid in location I do not like this you should respawn ar the nearest village and be able to trigger an ability/power that will give you a direction to your corpse.
Spawning at the nearest village is bad. This would mean more settings to control on your deed, whether you want to allow people to respawn or not. It would have to make sure you don't get stuck in an area. It's a coding nightmare.
If you want to be able to get your corpse back make sure you always know whereabouts you are. If you don't you only have yourself to blame.
OTHER RACIAL STRUCTURES
mine homes, hobbit holes, tree houses log cabins ect
I'd like to see the ability to make homes in a mine but that's the only part I like about this bit.
We don't have hobbits, elves, dwarves, gnomes, or whatever. So we really don't have any need for racial structure.
-
Then show me: http://wurmonline.com/forum/index.php?topic=10.0
Right here:
http://wurmonline.com/forum/index.php?topic=40290.0
"The Freedom servers are intended to be a place where players can enjoy the creative side of wurm without the interference of conflict with other players. As such certain activities (while not against specific rules) are frowned upon and will not be tolerated. Players who choose to play on the Freedom servers are expected to behave in a manner that is curteous and polite to thier fellow players."
You block someone in, and restrict their ability to move, the fences or structures will get popped.
If they can still travel on the other side of the deed and reach their destination they aren't blocked at all. So those 10 tiles (counting both deeds) can still be claimed like this as people can still reach the otherside.
I am not saying it's a nice thing to do but if there are still other routes which only require a detour of 100 tiles I'd say they aren't blocking anyones path (except of the lazy people
) -
If the nutritional loss incurred during in game play time was great enough it wouldn't make high ql meals useless. This idea adds a new mechanic to the food and nutrition system, and that is time.
If I where to address this like a system:
1. Nutrition only goes up when your eating. The food bar should fill at a constant rate regardless of what food you eat. This means the time you have to acquire nutrition gains is fixed.
2. Nutrition only goes down with time. An exponential rate should be used so you need to eat higher ql food to maintain higher levels of nutrition.
3. If you don't eat, your opportunity to undue or lessen the effects of time is lost. Not eating at all would gradually over time lower your nutrition to very low.
4. How quickly you get to max nutrition would be a balance between the time reduction and the food's effect. Its difficult to put a specific number on this. This whole thing reminds me of a linear algebra problem. It should be possible to set one up and tinker with things till a nice balance is reached.
You need to eat high ql meals to maintain high nutrition. Over time if you eat low nutritious food, you nutrition will level out at a lower point. But it won't instantly drop like it does now.
My issues with this is its not that much different then what we have now. I question if its worth making such a fundamental change so we can realize such a small functional difference.
A change like this would also mean that the spell opulence would need an overhaul. Currently it increases how well foods fills up your hunger bar. In the above scenario it would mean you have less eating time / nutrition intake. This would make the spell completely undesired.
An implementation like above means that this effect should be changed to either:
- increase nutrition value (meaning high ql food isn't needed again, as with other suggestions)
- increase nutrition value and how well it fills up the hunger bar (this would simply mean opulence food reduces the amount of time you spend eating).
If The Fall Damage Is Here To Stay...
in Town Square
Posted
I think climbing should stay an user decision. Auto climbing would slow a user down without him wanting to (or expecting to). This can make for nasty supprises when being chased.