• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

19 Decent

About Jashton

  • Rank
  • Birthday March 31

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    London, UK


  • Acc1
  • Acc2

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. shovel, BOTD88: 78c cod to Jashton please. Thank you
  2. +1 for only wild hives triggering these messages.
  3. This sounds fun. Although I agree with it not being able to spread on Freedom, I was wondering would it be possible to allow mycelium to be spawned with Fungus on a deed with a special permission for it (which would also stop the mycelium tiles decaying as long as they're on the deed)? Or would that cause a major coding headache?
  4. Hello. I was looking at a row of marble planters in front of one of my buildings and I realised that they're not all at the same level despite them all being on flat ground. I have tried pushing the planters as well as loading and unloading them but in some locations they will still be partially below ground and in others they look like they are levitating. (pics in spoiler) I have no idea what is wrong with them but would appreciate any help I can get please. This obviously isn't a major gameplay issue but now I know they're wonky it's driving me a little bit more crazy than usual Thanks Jashton
  5. rake, iron 90ql BOTD90 - 2s55c cod to Jashton please. Thanks.
  6. +1 to this. I am in a similar situation on my deed. Epic structure built by previous owner who would get rid of it for me if they could. All I want to do is expand out to sea a few tiles to make a decent dock area and maybe reduce my deed size in another direction but I can do neither whilst the structure is still there.
  7. Pretty much as the title says really. I understand how, on Epic, structures such as shrines, pylons etc. are important so they need a certain amount of protection but on Freedom I don't think that this is really an issue for anybody. I have a shrine in my perimeter made by a friend who sold me their deed a while back and its holy ground is preventing me from resizing. Nobody would be negatively affected if it was destroyed as it is situated by my docks and I can only expand out to sea. I was informed earlier by a GM that it is against the rules for them to remove Epic structures even on Freedom so I am at a loss as to how to resolve this situation within the current framework. If we could make it so that the original creator (only on Freedom) of the Epic structure could bash it then at least there'd be some way of removing an unwanted shrine etc. If destroying isn't an option then maybe just remove the holy ground that Epic structures create on Freedom? I could see that being a problem for people who are using Epic structures to protect land though. At the moment all this shrine really serves to do in this situation is to cause me annoyance and frustration and basically get in the way of my deed improvements and enjoyment of the game. I am obviously not expecting special treatment which is why I'd like this change to be implemented for everyone on Freedom and I'm sure there are other Freedomers out there who are having similar issues with unwanted Epic structures. Thanks for your time and I hope this can be resolved to everyone's liking. Kind regards Jashton Edit: maybe we could add ownership to these structures and allow only the owner to destroy them? That way someone could transfer the ownership to a new deed owner and they could have the option to destroy the structure rather than having to get the creator involved if they want to get rid of it.
  8. +1 for PvE servers. A difficult to build portal that needs to be enchanted (power affects distance like with Drused's idea) sounds good. I don't think there'd be a need for the enchant to decay though. I just think it should be very hard to build and take a lot of priests to enchant it and get a decent cast. Maybe also make it so there is a minimum distance between portals like we have with towers (say 200 tiles?).
  9. +1 I'd like to see an option on Freedom to reduce the perimeter to one tile. That would leave a two tile space between neighbouring deeds, more than enough for a road or right of way. If people are worried about others sealing off huge areas of free land then perhaps it could be made a rule (on Freedom, not Chaos) that a deed owner must make sure they do not build or terraform in their perimeter in such a way that it would obstruct the only route into a piece of non-deeded land outside of their perimeter? Edit: on second thought that rule wouldn't stop anyone deeding on a spot which already had obstructions where the perimeter is going to be. Maybe it would be better to make the rule that a deed owner must ensure that there is always a route available for other players to any non-deeded land that their deed is next to.
  10. Rather than having to destroy a house wall and start from scratch simply to change it to another choice of wall made of the same material (e.g. switching from a stone window to a stone oriel) maybe it would be better to have a 'change to' option on the old wall you wish to change instead. As you are only wanting to switch it to another wall of the same material it seems reasonable that the amount of materials required should be reduced also. For example, if you only needed a fifth of the normally required materials (but with a minimum of 1 of each material) to change from a door to a window of the same wall type then it would look something like this: Stone door --> stone window = 4 bricks + 4 mortar Timber framed door --> Timber framed window = 1 wooden beam + 2 mixed grass + 3 clay Wooden door --> wooden window = 1 large nails + 4 planks However, for changing to a wall of a different material there is no reduction (as it makes sense that being made of a completely different material the old wall would need to demolished and a new wall built in its place): e.g. Stone door --> wooden window = destroy stone door + 1 large nails + 20 planks (as it is now) Ultimately, this will mean that it is faster to make minor changes to house walls rather than major structural changes such as altering the materials the walls are made out of or extending the house itself (which would require the normal amount of materials as you would be building entirely new walls). This seems fair to me but obviously the reduction in mats required would need to be decided (perhaps a 4/5's reduction is a bit too generous?). I hope others feel the same way about this. Thanks for reading Jashton