Ryshad

Members
  • Content Count

    118
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

26 Decent

About Ryshad

  • Rank
    Villager

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Not sure if anyone else has reported it, but the texture is missing for the canopy over wide wooden windows and wooden canopy doors
  2. I think Vroomfondel's point wasn't that they need to BE items; the important part is that they AREN'T items. There are no caps on item count, so if you want to move 10k of something from server A to server B, that's fine. The end result is the same as it would be if you created 10k of that item on server B. Animals are different - they have a server cap on numbers with mechanisms to prevent you creating more when the limit is hit. If you allow cross server transport, how does the server deal with someone bringing in 4 horses when the creature cap is currently hit? Kill the 4 imports? Kill 4 existing animals? Allow the horses to remain, effectively making the creature count 104 out of 100 (100 is clearly not the actual limit, just an example)? If the crate did convert the animals into items the same questions apply, but when you try to unload the animals rather than when you enter the server. How frustrating would it be to try and unload your horses on the new server only to see "Server is full, please try again later" (or a thematic equivalent of that). Or worse still, you unload the horse and it keels over dead >.< One solution could be to show a message, before you leave your current server, that says something like "the open ocean is rough, the animals in the hold would not survive the journey" and any loaded animals die if you cross servers. It would mean being VERY careful about sailing near server borders with live cargo, but would prevent people migrating animals and messing with spawn caps.
  3. I don't see anywhere in that MamaDark's post that says the functionality would remain the same. Changing the name/model is an option, but there's nothing to say that you can pick that one option and leave everything else the same. Later posts from Retro stated that the intention was to find a combination of things from that list and/or use suggestions that would suitably balance/correct them. I'm not about to waste more hours of my life going back to that thread so if you suggested removing the fountain pans entirely and giving owners a functionless item as a keepsake for prosperity/legacy sake, I'll take your word for it; If I missed that specific post in the sea of angry essays, I can only apologise. I'm aware that there were one or two people trying to make helpful suggestions, but that got lost in the rest of the pages and pages of people demanding that unrelated bugs be fixed first, or this item be left alone completely.
  4. I read the nearly 20 pages of the pre-change discussion, so I'm not about to read this one. So many people complain when the devs release a patch that changes something without giving players any notice or input. This time around, they came to the forums and said up front "We want to do something about this, and we want your input" and all they got was page after page of people saying "don't change it" or just generally complaining about the dev team, the game and the community. As it stands, you got your way; for the time being, the items were renamed and remain functionally the same. Your response? Complain about the devs, the game and the community!! And you wonder why the devs rarely come to the forums to discuss the changes they are considering?!? If anyone needs me (I know they won't), I'll be playing Wurm rather than swimming through the tedious, repetitive vitriol that fills these pages.
  5. Wow...not sure how/why, but I read through all 15 pages of this (admittedly skipping some of the essays when it became clear they weren't contributing anything other than page counts to the conversation). One of the recurring questions seems to be "Why address this now?", and the answer is repeated several times in the thread when you take the time to read it: In 2008 when these items were created, they were the ONLY way to hold enough dye to paint large items; removing them at the time would have removed that ability. THAT was the reason they were allowed to remain, and with the recent changes to tubs/barrels and addition of amphora, that reason no longer exists. The people saying leave them alone, or rename and leave functionality have missed the point (as far as I've understood the dev's position): Other than holding large amounts of dye, any benefits the pan containers offered were undesirable and allowing the exploited items to remain in that state is not an option. Deleting them outright would understandably upset a lot of people, so some middle ground needs to be reached. What the dev's need to know is, what changes would hurt the least? What compromise would FP owners be willing to live with as an alternative to the FP going poof?
  6. Jut had a thought...if a full set of defaults is too much (although I think it would be the more complete approach), a minimal fix could be to grant May Manage permissions automatically to the player that applied the brand.
  7. The issue here is more to do with the conflicting permissions. As it stands, when an animal is branded, the deed becomes the owner and decides who can ride/manage the horse. I want my citizens to be able to protect their horses so I give them all brand permissions. So citizen A brands his horse and I hop online and set the permissions, for private horses that might mean only they have ride/manage permissions. However, along comes citizen B - he too has brand permissions, but doesn't have Manage Allowed Objects. According to the permissions on the horse, Citizen B cannot manage or ride the animal and Deed permissions don't grant him the right to manage it either. But Citizen B can Unbrand the animal, deleting all of the other permissions and then ride off on the horse. To me, it doesn't seem right that one permission can circumvent several others, especially as the permission isn't a "management" permission. tl;dr - It's the equivalent to the "Attach Locks" permission allowing citizens to unlock a house they have no permissions to enter/manage; seems counter intuitive.
  8. If this is the inteded behaviour, then I think these suggestions might be worthy of consideration: http://forum.wurmonline.com/index.php?/topic/132784-allow-us-to-set-default-permissions-for-all-newly-branded-animals/ http://forum.wurmonline.com/index.php?/topic/132786-make-unbrand-a-seperate-permission-or-tie-it-to-may-manage-permission/
  9. Related to: http://forum.wurmonline.com/index.php?/topic/132744-cant-ride-branded-horse-as-villager/ and a little related to: http://forum.wurmonline.com/index.php?/topic/132784-allow-us-to-set-default-permissions-for-all-newly-branded-animals/ Currently, if a citizen has the Brand permission, but no Mount/Manage permissions to an animal, they can simply unbrand it, erasing all permissions; this seems counter intuitive. I think the permissions either need to be separated in the roles management (eg Brand and Unbrand as separate permissions), or make the Unbrand option usable only by players who have manage permissions on the animal (via "May Manage" or "Manage Allowed Objects").
  10. In light of the trouble a citizen had with some horses (http://forum.wurmonline.com/index.php?/topic/132744-cant-ride-branded-horse-as-villager/) I think the way branded animals currently works might need a tweak. Currently, branding transfers ownership to mayor so, if a citizen brands their horse, they lose access to it until someone with "manage allowed objects" permission manually grants them permissions. It would be much better if someone with an appropriate deed permission is able to set/edit a deed's Default Animal Permissions which would be applied to all animals when they are branded. This way, if citizens are granted ride permission, they can still ride the horse they just branded. The permissions could then be fine tuned by someone with management permissions at a later date if needed.
  11. I exported my 11 x 44 Deed and loaded it into Deedplanner. I tried to resize it by 1 tile on the East and South edges to put in the tiles that the export missed (can't wait for that fix), but nothing happens. I tried various amounts and it appears that the resize only occurs if the new size will be a min of 50 x 50.
  12. Seems like a lot of the issues people are having (locked in their gardens, can't sleep in their bed, etc) are issues related to who the database considers to be the "owner". This isn't something they could resolve with further testing. If the mayor put the lock on your gate, or a friend, or villager, then they need to update the permissions or transfer ownership. It's gonna take a little time and effort to get all the ownerships and permissions squared away. I am the mayor of a moderately large village so I have a few hours of gate naming and bed setting to do, and I sympathise with the players who run huge deeds in PvP where there are much more granular permissions to set up. But I think it's far better we crack on and get things working, than roll everything back. Unless you think the devs are gonna go through every object in the game on a case by case basis to work out who the correct owner should be based on usage; there will always be this initial work to do when the system goes live.
  13. Did any of the people currently complaining about the new system: a) Read the dozen posts in the forums Notice the banner on the wiki for the last couple of weeks that said the new system was coming so we should take time to read the above mentioned posts c) Hop over to Test server to see how this all works and help eliminate some of the bugs d) Offer constructive criticism or suggest improvements before it went live If you can't answer Yes to most (if not all) of the above, then you have a very flimsy leg to stand on insulting the devs and demanding the new system be removed. You had ample chance to learn what the new system was and help shape it. There are some kinks to work out and the devs are clearly on that. Once the dust settles, the new system should be a great improvement.