Ecrir

That's no problem, I'm in no rush.

I would like to place an order for 24k dirt (sand is fine too), preferably delivered by Wagoner (I live on Xanadu).

How about instead of it automatically making things for you, such a structure instead adds a deed wide buff. For example a buff to the creation speed for certain items. This way the player would be able to make such items faster, as long as they keep the mill running? Perhaps in order to not make this too easy, make it similar to the other deed buffs that exist. In that you need to keep the mill running in order to steadily build up the buff over a period of time, and that the buff will start to decay in strength while the mill isn't running. Some mills could require animals to keep running, while others that function on the power of nature (wind mills, etc) might require constant maintenance as they decay rapidly, or they might simply increase deed upkeep. Then you could have different types of such structures, each with their own buff. Like the windmill + irrigation system that was mentioned, which could power a deed wide buff related to farming. You could have a mill that adds a buff for the milling skill as well, etc.

For the decay part, I'd change it from "is not in the inventory" to "is in the inventory of another character". As for why, I don't think it's a good idea to force players to carry all their tools with them at all times jsut to prevent such decay. This small adjustment would allow players to store their tools, for example in (magic) chests without being punished for that.

If you're going for the same idea as with spell gems, but then on scrolls, then you really don't have to worry about spell prices going down. Why? Because of the rng with spellcasting. The amount of scrolls you'd need to have a good enough shot at a good cast would simply be quite high. Due to that spell gems or scrolls would have to be worth almost nothing in order to compete with spellcasting services. And due to that scrolls would actually be a far better idea than spell gems, as it wouldn't surprise me if spell gems turned out to be worth less than blank gems thanks to said rng...

Sounds good, I think it would even be fine without any penalties. After all, you can enchant/rune sickles, so using a sickle would still hold plenty of advantages.

This feels a bit too close to pay to win, as affinities effectively help you get stronger faster. At least with marks it's limited unless you throw a truly insane amount of money at the game. I think a focus on cosmetics would be a better approach, especially as plenty have been introduced over the years.

That makes sense, but isn't that also pretty easy to address by limiting the power of an enchant that can be stored in a gem? For example by capping the max to [gem ql - x] where x could be 10, or 20, etc? Then you cannot use it to make top enchanted gear, you'd still need the current enchanting methods for that. Another alternative could be to let the gem become less effective when used on items with 1 or more enchants. For example the more enchants on the target item the less effective the transfer of an enchant from a spell gem could be. With this option you could still use a 100 cast spell gem and put it on a blank item, but you wouldn't be able to put it on an already enchanted item without the final result ending up weaker than what was on the spell gem. With either of the above two approaches it would also become possible to introduce even high power spell gems to loot pools without making the enchanting of perfect weapons trivial. There's probably more ways to prevent the issue mentioned, without turning the entire thing into an rng gamble fest.

In which case those people would still be better off just buying fully enchanted items from merchants. Even if they already have (partially) enchanted items it would still save them a lot of money unless they win the lottery. Worse is that those players are probably the easiest ones to scam too as they're less engaged with the community and thus likely less aware of how bad of a deal those gems are.

Even then the new player can end up with some seriously bad luck, like a 0 power LT cast. Is that really what a new player with a lack of funds would want to receive by spending the little bit of money he/she has? I could easily see some rage quitting from an outcome like that and even my near 90 channeling priest occasionally gets such casts. Meanwhile there are merchant threads where you can get a guaranteed 75+ LT cast for 20c.... So yeah, such rng gambling is nothing but a trap for new players, especially when taking current market prices into account (I looked at the south prices since that's where I play). Take into account gem prices and with the above cast price example from south freedom islands I really don't see where these spell gems would even fit in the market. Due to the rng you'd have to price them below the cost of blank gems just to compete with the pricing for guaranteed casts...

I quite like what I see in the roadmap, though the spell gems sound horrible to me. As to why? Well, the outcome of using such a gem would be way too random (just as with the cast). You'd be better off just hiring a priest to enchant your item with an enchant of a specific strength than to gamble by buying those gems. I think it would be better to get rid of that gamble aspect for the most part by putting the strength of the cast spell in the gem instead of the channeling level and faith bonus of the caster, just leaving a shatter chance. Then let the gem ql act as the upper limit for the enchant it can contain. As it's described now it just feels too much like a trap, especially for newer players whom don't know that those gems are one big gamble. There's nothing worse than a new player burning through their hard earned money and getting nothing worthwhile for it in return, that outcome seriously should be avoided unless you want new player retention to potentially take another hit.

For the taming part, I think it would be great if born unicorns could gain a "domesticated" trait so they no longer need to be tamed. If speed is an issue then that trait could also come with a speed penalty (and whatever other penalties are felt necessary) downside so that such unicorns are for example as fast as ebony black horses. This way if you want a fast unicorn and don't mind having to tame it then you could use one without that trait, and if you don't want to tame it then you could use one with that trait.

Perhaps those came from the inventories of one of their boats/wagons? There's even a Caravel in the list and that most certainly didn't come from someones inventory.

I think I'd remove the shatter thing from it as it's just too good and I don't think that something that good is suitable for a tier with such high requirements (as it would end up giving something really strong to a really small group of players). I feel that the Benediction reward is already pushing the limits of what a journal tier should do reward wise. That cloak on the other hand sounds perfect.

The post pretty much hints that the items came from banned players, so that would be my guess when it comes to their origin.

What you're stating there is that is something is overpowered in PvP combat then it must also be overpowered in PvE combat. Yet that is easily shown to be false with for example the following contradiction: Buff catapults so they one shot walls, now they are overpowered in PvP, yet they clearly aren't in PvE (as they're still as good as useless there).

Glass would be great with how many new building options it could unlock, just like how all the extra building/stone options added over the last decade made so many new creative things possible in game.

flying over deeds actually isn't even the issue, it's landing on deeds that is. So why not just add a landing permission to deeds so only people with permission can land while above a deed? Perhaps similarly also require the airship to be at least X tiles away from any structures when you want to land, that too should help prevent certain issues. Something like 5-6 tiles might be sufficient already, without it being so large that it gets in the way.

+1. I'd also love to see a tile like this on deed as an alternative to lawn tiles, but in that case it should also function like lawn when on deed, so when on deed it shouldn't naturally spread and also shouldn't allow the growth of trees/bushes.

That could be really painful if you end up letting your deed disband by accident (which is already quite painful to begin with). Perhaps an alternative could be to make it so that reinforcements are easier to remove in that case, instead of removing them automatically?

I could see it being usefull if the chance was always 100%, but it would indeed make smelters irrelevant without a good drawback. Would it be a strong enough of a drawback if it made the pickaxe take a lot more damage with each mining action? You'd have the convenience of not needing the smelter, with the inconvenience of going through pickaxes faster (especially if the increase in damage were to also affect the enchants on the thing).

Removing this sounds like a no brainer, since right now there's no advantage to any color except for ebony, thus there's no reason to have a horse with any color other than ebony. That's not exactly balanced, now is it? It also discourages people from going with a specific color because they like the way it looks, which is a real shame.

+1, this keeps the loot pool fresh as something new automatically gets added to it every month, and it would allow people to get their hands on old skins through hard work. At the same time it's also good for the skins market as old skins become more readily available.

That's why you need to do it slightly differently. For example a 30 faith requirement in order to gain any benefits. In that case it will take some time after swapping before you can benefit from said swap. Or alternatively just require a set amount of time to have passed since the swap, perhaps a month (or two if one isn't long enough). As long as the wait period is long enough that they'll end up missing one or more casts then swapping simply isn't worth it any more for SB.

What I bolded is utterly rediculous (assuming I understood it correctly). It's a journal goal, so if some random player decided to ninja cast it in order to get the journal goal then that's simply as designed, isn't it? After all you simply can't force everybody to go along with how a subset of the players wants to organize and run global spell casting, even if it's the most efficient way for the highest amount of players to tick that goal off their list. If such a thing is ever to be counted as griefing then it should frankly either be removed as a journal goal, or the entire global spell system should be reworked. Thankfully you can now get Benediction without meeting this journal goal (about time), so stuff like this should now be less of an issue than before.