Roger Hellers
-
Content Count
174 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Roger Hellers
-
-
Do you remember tha Apartheid system ? This is an elitist idea and should not even be looked at.
-
Breaking fences.It is illegal to break any fence that does not belong to you AND is also a part of an enclosure.
Enclosure is defined as a completely enclosed area, actively in use, composed of fences, gates or walls , and attached to a completed house.
I know you are trying to make black & white rules so everyone reads them the same way. However in the above rule the activily in use part is subjective to the viewer.
I know it's hard to get it completely black and white but replacing activily in use with the following will leave no doubt:
"with none of the composing fences, gates and walls below 50 damage (number is example)"
this can only be read one way.
On the topics of highways you might also want to make a rule that it is not allowed to place a highway in x amount of tiles of a deed (or perimeter). This can force them into griefing when they expand the deed and want it gone.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With above said I find it strange that the game is heading in a direction where deeds mean jack.
It feels like the paying customer is no longer interesting as they are already putting in money and it is focusing on keeping non-paying players around whilst removing incentives to go prem.
-
I'd even go further and make gem veins uncommon instead of rare, and then remove the ability to gain gems from praying.
-
a ql 0.9 emerald talk about some crappy luck
-
I was just thinking about very low burn damage that could be made a pain to heal.
It could kill you only if you stand in the same place for hours, and the campfire thus would need to be fueled
hehe, it could be a nice weapon vs macro bots, esp. on freedom
<sarcasm>
Yes let's implement a tool which enables easy griefing.
</sarcasm>
Fire damage from a campfire would be nice but a check would have to be make if the location where the fire is made is not occupied by a player or npc. Too easy to abuse otherwise not to mention if you are aiming for more realism starting a fire under someone is not going to happen (unless you tied or otherwise incapacitated said person beforehand).
-
True but in that case there no point spiting a good idea to help ensure there is a healthy cycle of spawns because a minority are hoarding which should be dealt with entirely differently.
I suppose I did make the mistake of writing my post from the aspect of someone who has a minimum herd, grooms them everyday to prevent disease and regularly culls/gives away.
-
Simple solution then. Don't Hoard.
What I have suggested works for everyone but hoarders. And even then hoarders only hoard because they want a constant supply of meat. if they are always able to breed there is no need to hoard.
The problem is the hoarders will hurt others at some point like they did before. They do not only hoard for the above reason. Some hoarders just do it because they can.
Animal cap is now perfect imo
No need for changes.
The cap doesn't need changing indeed. It's the longlivety of animals that are abandoned / uncared for which is the problem.
-
You seem to miss the point. Thanks to having a seperate pool for births and deaths it would be very rare that an animal born on a deed would remove another animal on a deed elsewhere... it would remove according to age, deed status, tame status and terrain type. Starting with those animals stuck on cliffs. All that would be happening is the conversion of an old soon to die Wild animal into a born tamed animal. The way spawns are at the moment theres no way people could breed enough to eat up the excess.
-
Ensures breeding is always possible and that new monsters are always being spawned. And if a new animal is "bred or born" into existence an older mob is removed using some kind of priority system, first removing those that are on Rock/Cliffs over a certain steep, then those off deed, then those on deed?
-
You're probably missing some information then, there is probably alot more hten simple applying the codes from the outer walls to allow them inside, that is why rolf said he wonders if the client will support it.
-
I don't get why inner walls are such a problem to implement.
- Makes inner walls a tileborder "item" just like a fence. Buildable only in a finished house (this code exists it's used for sleeping check).
have 4 variants:
- stone wall
- stone door
- wood wall
- wood door.
most of code if not al the code already exists to do this. The models would need a copy from the regular house wall models with some small adjustments.
-
New server brand new character (skill & equipment wise).
Starting out with affinities, skills which were gained on another server when starting epic is unfair to say the least. From what I heave read it will be a clone of your char of sorts but starting fresh. So I assume this is how it will be.
The bootstrapping just makes it even more epic imho. But that's just preference. Only problem which has been mentioned before is the flint and steel so that'd have to be fixed.
-
So how would this system decide which of the hatchets it should use?
I often carry more than 1 of the same tool with me.
- a high ql tool when i went to get max ql resources.
- a low ql tool with CoC cast on it to skill grind.
The system can't know this without me telling it. Taking away that choice from me and having the system decide removes part of the sandbox idea.
Another problem is different tools that work on 1 object. I want to do something to a log I cut. Which tool would the system select?
The saw, the carving knive, the hatchet? All these tools have specific creating menu's for the log and combining those makes for some very large randomly listed (with each reset, unless this was recently changed) creation list which makes finding the one thing you want to make an even bigger pain.
- a high ql tool when i went to get max ql resources.
-
Allow villages to buy newbie spawns zones, to allow new folks to pick somewhere other than that terrible bottleneck called FM.
This is a bad idea. Let's not give the power to allow new players in an area to a single player it's way to easy to abuse.
It's already been show quite a lot of people do not want a spawn point near them in other threads.
Adding op spawn points is something only dev's should be able to do. Even if they do think about there's still the position of established players to take into considaration. Cause you can't milk the cow if you made it run away.
-
Maybe add a few shafts as well. These would keep the corners sturdy.
It's a nice alternative for those who have crappy access to clay or low stoneworking skills.
-
which obviously no griefer will admit to , and it could be argued that every action can have multiple purposes, if just one of those purposes is to grief then a griefer they be despite other reasons. This is why we have GM's who have the last say as they weigh up certain situations.
other than useing glitches in the game there is not one single action you can do which does not have a purpose in the game. So ,to follow your argument, griefing simply does not exist in any game and has never occured and never will unless in some game in the future the devs offer an action button labeled "grief player" which when activated insta bans the actiavtor. So at some point it fails.
Yes every action can have multiple purposes. However when it's griefing the only purpose is to disrupt someone else fun no other purpose is added.
Grieving is never one of the umltiple purposes of an action, it's always the ONLY one.
Either I didn't write it clear enough or perhaps you read it in a different way then supposed but this argument does not mean there is never any griefing.
e.a. Person A grieves you by digging away the tundra. Getting dirt and taking it back to his place has the same purpose as the digging action itself, disrupting your fun. No other purpose matters even though he get's resources this way, it's just a bonus.
Person B just happens to need tome dirt and takes it of the same spot. He disrupts your fun as well but the purpose of his actions were completely different.
Yes this makes it hard for a GM/dev to judge whether it is griefing or just random alteration of the terrain.
-
griefing is an action which has the purpose of spoiling another player's game experience. It is not tied to breaking rules necessarily.
He destroyed 1000s of tundra tiles , not around his own deed but around my deed , not breaking any rules but griefing non the less .
It is grieving when the SOLE purpose is spoiling someone's fun. If the fun spoiling is only problem due to different views it's not grieving, although it is still annoying.
BUT ! the few tiles of DEEDED tundra he also managed to destroy WAS BREAKING the RULES AND GRIEFING ! So he is indeed a rule breaking griefer..thief. .. but u can try defending him if u wish.I suggest you go see for yourself .
I am not defending anyone.
I am merely stating that people yell griefing way to quick because certain things are done which they don't like. Altering terrain is not always grieving even if it concerns 1 million tiles. It's not grieving until someone is willingly altering terrain with the SOLE purpose of ruining someone's gaming experience.
This is about 1 single case so read all info avalable and try to stay on topic.
I am on topic, the OP is about feedback on the destruction of tundra altering op terrain.
-
Every player should have the option to develop areas as they see fit
You are saying it yourself here. Everyone should have the option to develop as they see fit. That also applies when destroying tundra or any other tile.
Perhaps he didn't like the view of is in the distance.
Its called a "grey area" for a reason , rules that are in place for the most part work well ,to change them in a way that protects one form of behaviour would remove alot of the sence of freedom from the game, but "deed it or lose it" gives the green light to griefing .
It's not griefing to alter the terrain. No one has sole right or say over anything they do not pay for. This is something people seem to completely miss (the only exceptions to this are made gms /dev).
Everyone has the same amount of right over any non deeded tile. Just because someone lived at a spot longer means nothing it's that simple.
People instantly scream grieifing because they are simply not used to it and are too stubborn to accept that with a larger playerbase certain things that were taken for granted in the old days don't apply anymore.
I am not saying there is no such thing is grieving but some people have taken it's use to an extreme.
-
A trade channel would be nice to have. Although it's another channel for moderators to keep clean. It could cut down on sales spam in kchat.
Saying people should use IRC is bad. People should be able to have seperate channels without being forced to use 3rd party software.
-
I think this is the crux of the whole problem. An established social structure was in place and new(er) players moving into an established area with existing surrounding deeds use to talk to the people in the area to see where a good place to plant a new deed would be and find out what was expected in the area...a social structure.
With the influx of new players and alts, and with the greifer flood, the social structrure that use to exist in the game has been shattered. The dominant theme of the day is take what you can when you can and screw anyone in your way. If you think this is not true, have you been reading the forums?
The whole social structure has changed no doubt about it. However the old structure had no origin in the game rules itself. It originated from the playerbase and how they interacted. It never was against the rules to deed right next to someone or alter off-deed landscape. However the playerbase frowned upown it and it wasn't much of a problem.
The playerbase has now expanded and changed in how it behaves. People don't care as much if the neighboors don't like certain things, plant deeds right next to each other, alter off deed terrain.
I have had this happen to me as well, thing is I know they are within their right and accept that.
Just because it never happened much doesn't mean you didn't know it could be done to you. If you choose to ignore the warnings you can only blame yourself now that it does happen.
Expecting everyone to abide to the same moral values or social structure in an MMO is quite frankly rediculous it won't ever happen.
-
How about just eliminate all tiles except dirt and grass. That way there is less ways for idiots to cause grief.
I don't care about the deed it or lose it mantra, its flawed.
Any player that deliberately causes grief to others only for his own enjoyment, should be insta-banned from the game.
There might be cases that aren't so black and white, but in obvious cases like this, its needed.
-
I voted against adding more.
The decision the move the spawn to it's current location was bad. It was not giving enough thought and feels like a rushed idea because Rolf wanted f2p on Freedom no matter what.
I realize that the samling area wouldn't be a good place for new players but the howl sure ain't either.
Rolf should have put more thought into the whole let's move new players to freedom. Putting the spawn in a mountainous spot is silly (at best). It's like new player skill (or f2p max skill) was left completely out of the picture.
Not the mention the way it was done showed poor taste which is something several people clearly showed their opinion about.
I understand Rolf has limited time and loads of work but experience teaches that doing something halfway will cost more in the long run that doing it proper the first time around. Something which in Wurm has been proven several times.
If this map's spawnpoint is to be adjusted it should go to a newly generated (by code or gm) peninsula. It should have a wide radius were it's forbidden to place deeds. This will give incentive to leave when you decide to keep playing (as prem or non-prem) in order to get deed security.
Also get a sickle into the starting tools (this has been mentioned so often).
Yes people will still have to travel to long times to get to certain places but that's part of the game. Removing this is the same as removing carpentry... it's removing a feature of the game (carpentry it's just a bit more liked
). As long as the basics are on the peninsula it would not be a deterrant for new players.We need to think how to be more new player friendly HOWEVER this should NOT go at the cost of those that already payed / are paying for the game.
-
-1 to the 3x decay outside of deed. Just keep the decay as it is. Imp-ing the decay will only hurt active players.
I'd rather see buildings from players who have not been online or premmed for X amount of time blowup up. (I'd even go as far as to say any item not in their inventory but which is tied to their name such as boats get nuked too).
The amount of time for those that have never been premium should be shorter than for those that have. A.e. 3 months for a player who has been prem, 6 weeks for a non-prem.
This will get rid of unused stuff just the same without making things more of a drag for those that are actually active.
-
+1
It's a marketing thing which is missing in the shop. You'd be suprised how many people buy a little extra if that little extra brings in a discount.
It's a win-win if implemented and people start using it. Rolf sells more and the player get a little discount.
Yes buying from player will most likely always be cheaper but that's not really an argument against smart selling tactics on Rolf's part.
Game Rule Changes/Updates
in Independence
Posted