Rishy

Members
  • Content Count

    29
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

34 Decent

1 Follower

About Rishy

  • Rank
    Villager

Recent Profile Visitors

664 profile views
  1. From my experience this is due to queuing multiple actions before all previous actions have finished. Example with 20 mind logic (max. 3 queue): Que 3 actions; Finish two actions (one left in queue); Que 3 actions (queue overflows; following the 'you are too busy' prompt); Finish the third action (no rarity); Finish the fourth action (first on second queue) with potential rarity; Finish last two actions without rarity. Whilst it may seem that the seemingly 'second' action after creating the second queue turned rare, it is actually the first action of the second sequence, as the action prior was already (still) running. Like what is described below: And about this: RNG. Spent ten four years without a single affinity (of which 18 10 months prem) after which I got four in two weeks (two months ago). EDIT: forgot about the 'recent' change in affinity gains four years ago.
  2. So, along the lines of: Let's say that after completing 'Paved with Stone' journal, the player gets to choose one specilization, as by that time they should be slightly familiar with most skills. These would consist of e.g. Constructor (masonry + paving + carpentry etc. missions), Labourer (mining + digging + woodcutting), Chef (farming + fishing + cooking etc. missions), Ranger (animal taming/husbandry + gardening + forestry + foranizing missions) and variations hereof where missions should not be exclusive necessarily per specilization. With rewards varying from unique titles to affinity/timer bonuses. This way one would not be forced to follow the general journal, forcing one to become a jack of all trades, but could choose something that would be a better fit towards their roleplaying and enjoyment aspect.
  3. Finished rainbowifying part of the deed.
  4. That's actually a Brig, not a Caravel. Nevertheless I am heavily in favour of introducing new, bigger ships, which would go hand in hand with this option op loading and towing ships.
  5. Au contraire, we need bigger ships, that cannot pass through cave canals. Like cutters, clippers, modular ships where sails can be adjusted to weather; basically anything that has more sails than a caravel.
  6. So on the one hand we do not want fragmentation, though do want new places to explore. On the other hand we want to start over, but at the same time bring over old equipment and an existing market. NFI is designed to be separated from SFI for a reason, where players have started anew for a reason, not expecting for a merge to happen ever. If you did expect that, that would only boil down to having been giving false promises to yourself and potentially you would have been wasting your time. No announcements have been made or hinted to so far, because there likely is nothing to announce about this. How would it have been different from introducing more SFI servers? Would everyone in favour of merging the servers now, have been in favour of having had introduced new SFI island at the time instead? (If not, because of reasons stated above, then why wouldn't you have isolated yourself from the market, if not temporarily?) Honestly I see no difference in merging the servers now and having introduced more SFI servers instead. Can we all please make up our collective minds?
  7. Thanks, I managed to get it working on MXlinux KDE today as well, using a clean wineprefix. Earlier I ran into issues where it would not work using dotnet45 (stated as being required in the first post) and I had to use a winetricks version outside the one delivered in aptitude, using the --self-update argument.
  8. Yes for modular wagons! Since the uncovered wagoneer model has no item clutter, this also gave me the idea that it could give us the option to, for example, install two shipbuilding seats in a wagon, to be able to transport more people at once. Over sea we are able to transport many at once, though over land we are limited to only three at most. Edit: at the cost of cargo space of course.
  9. So it should still be possible to create enormous dirt-pillars on top of those and then build on top of that? Not familiar with the topology of Xanadu myself, but would all those be taller than Dragon Fang Mountain on Indy? This is still on my to-do list; is there a way to climb it to the top by means of cave tunnels?
  10. 88 paving here, what do you need done?
  11. Those missing wall (plans) have finished walls under them. As mentioned before, the ground floor needs to count as finished, which it would be not if the wall plans that you would want removed are on the ground floor (as is the case). Therefore it is not possible to remove those wall plans. There may be other possibilities but we would need to see more angles from your building to see how and what.
  12. Is it a circular design? If so, then I think the wall on the interior circle is also considered the external wall, meaning that every wall on higher floors needs to have a finished wall under it. Thus it would be impossible to remove these walls. I guess this is done intentionally to prevent construction of inverted pyramids and the like, but it also hampers the more innocent design, such as building overhang. One solution -I think- would be to add the interior to the building plan, after which you should be able to remove the wall plans, and it would not require a roof. The interior part would then however be considered as 'inside the building', despite having no roof, making it look like it's not.
  13. One knarr of every wood type, animated here: https://i.imgur.com/aQSKtWZ.mp4
  14. I also managed to enjoy some of the... fallter season by crossing servers. Actually looked quite nice: