Shiraek

Ways to combat z-fighting: You can make sure two objects are never at the same depth Adjust near and far clip planes to give the z-buffer less distance to cover... adjusting the near clip plane just a tiny bit will usually help a lot, except where two objects really are at exactly the same depth You can assign an Offset in the shader (e.g. Offset -8, -8) of one of the objects and this can push it back or forwards to force the issue where two objects are clipping into each other Wurm's pretty good with z-fighting in general, I don't see much of it in game.

nice!

Nice work Mani... this is why I love Deli.

How are those three things not all considered exploits? It would be good to fix them, or at the very least declare them exploits so the next person exploiting them can be banned (?) The first is an exploit because if there weren't animals hitched you couldn't take anything out of the cart or move it so why would animals being hitched to it alter the permissions The second is an exploit because you shouldn't be able to unhitch someone else's animals from their cart on their deed The third is an exploit because you shouldn't be able to HITCH someone else's animals TO their cart on their deedIf we didn't know about these (I sure didn't, and I've been playing for years) and suddenly they're being used to steal stuff on PVE servers, can't we ban people doing that for what is pretty obviously exploiting bugs in the code? Why is there still not a "no stealing" rule? Sure you can't enforce it all the time but sometimes you could and that might act as a deterrent and/or let you ban people you catch and reduce a lot of the drama. If it's on deed and not yours and you take it, you stole <BAN>, next!

Enclosing the eastern plateau with hedges so it can be more useful and/or safer to fall on:

I now HAVE a shader that basically does what you want, you could load various wood grains into it instead of the patterns we put on our ships, and define a main tint colour and even a secondary colour. *thinks about how to explain* Oh here have a look at the video, first 1.5 mins of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w94t5CEIErw That's done with a shader. There are two textures that come with the ship (base and a map to show where the customised stuff can be applied), and the patterns can be applied to any ship. The shader's probably a good deal more complicated than Wurm needs as you don't let players customise stuff like this, but you could cut half of it out and still have varying wood grains and colours. You would only need a base texture per item and various wood grain textures.

I think most people (not most uber priests but everyone else) would be happier with the system if: 90 Channelling meant you could reliably imp casts up to 90 given enough time (say 10 casts, or something comparable to imping an item to 90ql with 90 in the relevant skill)40 channelling meant you could reliably imp to 40 etcShatter rate dropped to zero when item quality + channelling > 100Rolf released the actual formulae for calculating success chance, including things like what (if anything) soul depth and statuette quality doI'd probably re-prem my priest alt if that were the case. 40-50 ql casts are useful to me, shattering everything no matter the quality to get to 40 sometimes is not As for releasing the info, I think once you've got superstitions forming (and some of what we "believe" about casting must be superstition by now, so many people are saying so many wacky random things affect it) it's probably time to end the speculation as the "discovery" stage is over. In fact if we were ever going to "Discover" the formulae we would've nailed it years ago.

I was chatting to a friend tonight actually about this very issue with survival games. Once you get food/water/shelter/clothing sorted, the survival game is over. If you're lucky, some kind of building game extends on from that point. If not, it's literally game over. For me wurm's survival game faded out after a week or two, once I had a house and could fish and started farming. Many things to ponder for future game designs

Deliverance has empty coastline and empty lakefront, including lakes that have connection to the sea by canal. It's a server designed for hundreds of people with usually <50 people on...

Still denying, still defending your actions, still trying to distract from the issue at hand - and you wonder why most don't think your apology is sincere? You stole. You have yet to take responsibility for that action. It is you whose true colours are on display.

No one's ever conclusively proven (with actual data) that any of these things impact casts. I think that might be part of the problem. We don't know what works, and there's no official word (that I'm aware of)? For all we know, we're grinding all kinds of totally irrelevant things on our priests. As for the fear of higher end stuff being for sale for cheaper... the only people who fear that are the tiny minority with uber priests. I would imagine the majority of the playerbase and the game would benefit if moderately skilled priests had some value. I would be might be tempted to re-prem mine, for example. As things stand, when the price of a (nearly useless) priest alt rose from 5 to 8 euros, I dropped her.

Why are the wiki and forums conflated? The wiki is priceless to a newbie. These forums would have them sprint in the other direction for the most part. If I'd read them before playing I'm not sure I'd have started

What do you mean you made a mistake? Do you mean you accidentally ripped someone off? I don't think so. You mean you deliberately did it, got caught and now regard it as a mistake. Not my circus, not my monkeys, but I don't see how you've got the cow off the ice.

Fascinating. I'm all for sticking to your vision, but not after it's been proven to be a failure. That's time to adapt.

Sounds like an... interesting game design. Wouldn't a mechanism to take over deeds be less detrimental and lead to a more fluid conflict? Especially if there was some bonus to the original owner attempting to take it back, however temporary, like CIV's culture bonus? As to the original question, there's two answers really: "Griefing" is defined by the rules, or Any time you do something and your "opponent"'s negative emotional reaction is part of your reward, it's griefing. That's probably the "dictionary" definition of it. As for why I'm responding on a PVP thread... it's posted to town square. I'm tempted to write that the only solution is for everyone to come over to PVE servers

I remember that vid and I agree with the basic message. Devs and Gamers alike - proceed with caution. Absolutely. But it can work. The only Steam EA games I've bought are: Kerbal Space Program Prison Architect Subnautica Of the three the only one that couldn't be released as complete right now is Subnautica, and it's pretty close in my opinion - although of course it will benefit from a longer development. Have I been lucky? Or is it possible that with a bit of caution you can avoid buying crap? (these aren't rhetorical questions I really don't know) As for big studios, them calling something "complete" means nothing to me. How many "complete", "released" games have been a hopeless mess? I've lost count. The last one I bought was Rome 2 Total War. Don't get me started on it... but it was basically in very EA state when it released for $90 or whatever. And by that stage I had already sworn I would never buy another "new" game without reading reviews. After Rome II I don't even trust reviews anymore. After buying it I went hunting for an honest review, found one (to my chagrin) on a major site that I used to trust, and linked it to my friend. He went to the page and said the link was broken, nothing there. I reloaded and the article was gone. And a nicer review was up in its place next to ads for Rome II. I am not making this up, I saw it with my own eyes. So I don't know. As a gamer, the only reviews I really trust nowadays are those by other gamers. I tend to read through a bunch of steam reviews for a game before I buy it. Some will be fanboys, some will be haters, but most are just normal people who checked out the game and what they write usually decides me. Not whether it's in EA, or "released" or whether a big studio or a small one made it (although I can't remember the last big studio title I enjoyed? Skyrim probably...) or what the "gaming press" say. You can even check out the author of a steam review. What other games do they play? How many hours have they played this game? If they spent <2 hours and gave up their view's kind of irrelevant IMO. If they gave it 10 and think it sucks they're probably on the money. If they say it's wonderful and spent 150 hours... they're for real. As a developer, Early Access is a godsend. I would be right now looking for work if we hadn't released on Steam Early Access. Instead I get to keep my job, I get to keep my company, and we might be hiring our third employee soon. Exporting games and hiring local talent instead of working a job someone else could have and working on my dream as a hobby. As for KS. I really don't know what the future holds. It was supposed to be a source of funding for things which would otherwise not get funded, but it's become a place for the big names to go and clean up, and of course it's attracted a lot of scammers, like flies to rotting meat. If you think you get scammed as a backer, try running a project there. I got several emails a day, at one point, offering us various "backer buying" schemes (yes all of them we reported, not sure what happened never heard anything), and we were accused of being a scam ourselves a few days' in - ironically because we didn't have that many backers but were doing well, we had almost no $1 backers which made us really stand out as odd. A few weeks' in it was clear that the number of backers was the only stat KS was using to determine whether a project was "popular" or not, which explained why people were selling batches of $1 backers. I don't think I'll ever run another KS. Yeah, we got funded, but no thanks to KS or the whole sickening economy around it - virtually all of our backers were sent to the page from our website, from in game, word of mouth, facebook page or emails, or the handful of small press sites that covered us.

We get this too, although here instead of immigration (no party here wants to tackle immigration - cutting it would send our economy into recession which is political suicide) we use Asylum Seekers who arrive by boat as the scapegoats. Not ones who arrive by plane, not any other category of refugee, not immigration (skilled or unskilled), not even immigration which is blatantly giving local jobs to people from overseas temporarily where they're sent back when the job is done. It's incredible, but the public seem to swallow it hook, line and sinker year after year. The debate remains on this one kind of asylum seeker rather than anything else from the whole immigration issue. For reference the "worst" it ever got was about 10,000 or 14,000 of these "boat people" in one year, at a time where our immigration is usually 190,000 per year or so. All the while the narrative is being pushed - resources are scarce (false, we're in a global resource glut right now), income for the government is scarce (false, we're one of the lowest taxed countries in the OECD - would be easy to increase taxation in many areas without wrecking anything), and these people, who amount to a tiny fraction of immigration in the "worst" year and now amount to virtually no trace of it, are somehow the target of all derision. Yet if you look at the economy or the budget, immigration as a whole is a source of net growth for both. The economy is growing so the only real issue is a reduction in government revenue, and the narrative is kept 24x7 on reducing spending instead of increasing taxation. It's incredible, but generally speaking they've gotten away with what is blatantly complete nonsense when you spend about five minutes (not exaggerating) looking into it. Where you've got, without immigration, negative population growth and therefore an aging population (and that's exactly what every "first world" country has at the moment), either you have enough immigration to keep your population growing, or you will have a recession, simply because you will have fewer and fewer people in the workforce being productive over time as more and more of your population retires. That's the central fact behind the immigration strategy of every first world nation, and it's somehow kept off the news and out of debate - because evil foreigners coming to our shores and taking "our jobs" is a very effective narrative for diverting attention away from the real problems (like peak oil and global warming), and the real thieves. Who're the real thieves? Well, despite the fact that apparently "times are hard for everyone" we have worse distribution of wealth than at any other time in history, and it's worsening faster than at any other time in history. Surely that tells anyone with an IQ higher than their shoe size, that the wealthiest .1%, 1%, 10%, can afford to pay a little bit more tax and fund essential services like health and education that their wealth depend on. Or does anyone really think an uneducated, unhealthy workforce leads to economic growth? Sorry, rant over for now

We've got similar issues here in Australia. During the mining boom (up until the GFC particularly) we had round after round of income tax cuts as governments sought to, depending on how you look at it, put money back in the economy where it can do some good, or buy votes. However once the mining boom ended instead of raising income tax again the narrative is that we "can't afford" to fully fund public health and education anymore. Meanwhile people pointing out the missing income tax, or areas where we're subsidising or discounting taxation for big business, the wealthy etc aren't given any air time on the main stream media and largely ignored. Ironically despite all of that, the public don't buy the narrative and the government has failed to obtain support for cutting services here for the most part, with most of their last budget blocked by the senate and deemed unacceptable in opinion polls.

I wouldn't say no incentive, but it sure would be interesting to see a class action or two where backers who haven't received rewards take action, and another where the project wasn't delivered. KS make it quite clear that you are obligated to deliver on your rewards and to make every reasonable attempt to complete your project. As for EA, there are some really good, interesting games in Early Access right now that would never have been made, or whose development would've stopped without it. I'm sure there's some garbage there too; I do notice quite a lot of caution these days for both KS and EA and I think that's a healthy thing, even if it hurts those who really are trying to deliver content. The number of failed projects is eroding the credibility of these services whether the failure is due to incompetence or a deliberate scam.

I guess ultimately this comes down (yet again) to what's permissible in game via game mechanics being out of whack with what the community perceives as acceptable behaviour. The only really permanent fix is to bring the former in line with the latter. Most games which allow sales between players have a form of escrow in between mediating it, which minimises scams. Even games which allow scamming (EVE Online for example) have a system of escrow. Wurm also has this system but it doesn't apply well to ships, deeds etc.

I'd support this change. Surprised it's not in already really, an doubly surprised I've got a post in this thread before PVPers saying PVP is the answer

Yes, 90 weapon smithing would take a very, very long time. Sorta my point really? "It will happen anyway" is a bit of an empty argument, for two reasons: That doesn't make it right. Do we legalise murder because it happens anyway? Of course not. Companies SAY they couldn't stop it and that's why they facilitate and charge for it now, but the reality is the high-ups saw an "income stream" they weren't getting profits from. The reality is that in games I've played account buying and selling was a kind of cheating that very few people did until it was "legalised". Getting banned and/or having no support when the original owner claims their account back were solid deterrents. Not for everyone - just the vast majority. I realise this is a bit of a pointless debate. The odds of Code Club changing their policy on this one would have to be somewhere between zip and zilch, but opinions were sought Lastly... "fund development" isn't a "line", however "overused" it might be.