Etherdrifter

Members
  • Content count

    1551
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

924 Excellent

3 Followers

About Etherdrifter

  • Rank
    Villager

Recent Profile Visitors

1457 profile views
  1. +1 As long as it is actually a usable weapon (the majority of weapons in wurm are unused...)
  2. I think wurm's code has passed that point of shankability already; it's fastly approaching an invitation to vivisection. You do make a good point though, I must admit that most of my experience with programming is dealing with non-standard logics. Client-Server interaction is something I am still learning (and I am very much in favour of the maxim "never believe the client"), but a lot of the logic could be done by the client since (in this situation) we're more concerned with the world's actions upon the player (sudden death by templar if you AFK at the wrong moment) and not their actions upon the world (the player is just auto-moving to a set location via a series of waypoints). The only thing that would likely be server side would be the initial warning and then interceding to prevent templars from killing people passing through a deed they are KoSed on. The rest could be done via the client because the server already tells it all it needs to know.
  3. There is probably a smarter way to do it. I spent long enough in there finding the various spell mechanics and getting the context for them to make sense!
  4. Well the game must log when you enter a perimeter you are KOSed on, otherwise the templars/guards would not respond. Thus all you need to do is check for the flag (which are you doing anyway to make the guards ignore them), if they have the auto-travelling flag then check their destination and compare it with the deed the guards due to move in belong to. If they are the same stop movement, scan the 8 surrounding tiles around the player for one outside the perimeter, automove the player to the one with the least slope difference. Job done.
  5. Oh look, another one. Gratz on the godhood; lets hope your spellset is broken enough for the devs to look into player god balance.
  6. Easy solution PvE solution: Give a player auto-travelling a flag (autotravel=true), if a player has auto-travelling set to true templars ignore them. If their destination is a deed they are KoSed at, warn them that they are KoSed for that deed and ask them if they want to continue, then have them stop on the tile next to the perimeter of that deed (should be easy enough to code) rather than at the end of the highway. This would allow folks to keep their KOS, but not use it to block highways. The only rub is that "gated highways" would have to be impossible (reasonable sacrifice).
  7. Speaking as a priest, we've not seen *useful* new content in a fair few years (at least nothing a bless bot can't quickly do). -1 from me as it stands
  8. I disagree, this implies that those who PvP don't actually want to be doing so. This rather implies that PvP is something one does for utilitarian means, not for the fun of it. You are also assuming that anyone save the main kingdoms can actually compete; a gross misconception. In essence the notion of blocking copmetitive content is a good one, if the event were actually competitive. Also, if you wanted the competitive elements to be stronger (i.e. more attendees) you'd also be in favour for mechanics such as capped skills and fixed equipement in the play area; both of which would definitely make the event more competitive (a lot more turnout too), but it would also errode the massive advantages elite players (most of whome got their skill levels using mechanics which no longer exist) possess. While I do think PvP should have a lower access barrier to content (risk vs reward, it's got to come into it), I do not think it should act as an absolute barrier to content (PvP or gtfo).
  9. -1 Far too easy to farm (pun intended)
  10. +1 for village/alliance emblems -1 for kingdom I think we all know why.
  11. +1, this would make rares a lot more useful.
  12. Surely it would come under toymaking? +1
  13. I quite agree with you, what competitive content has it been blocking?
  14. I see a lot of the nebulous "oh this would make PvP less unique" argument cropping up any time PvE wants access to sandbox content, which begs the question "why is this a bad thing?". Wurm's PvP needs to stand on its own merits as a fun competitive platform; not as a block to sandbox content. Insisting that "if you want x then you have to PvP us for it hur hur hur" doesn't make people more likely to PvP, all it does is create resentment against that mindset and further errodes a dying community. To be quite frank, the elephant in the room is that most people suspect the "oh this would make PvP less unique" argument is really "oh this would make it harder for me to make silver ingame" in disguise. Personally speaking; the divide between PvE and PvP content shouldn't be in terms of item availability; it should be in terms of convenience. Either take a risk (PvP) and get what you want quickly, or spend a long time grinding (PvE) for the same effect (rather like how fighting skill currently works). It retains item value and makes those items accessable for those of us who don't want to buy someone elses account for a chance to compete.
  15. Which rather serves a useful purpose of its own.