Pandalet

Lead Forum Moderator
  • Content Count

    2512
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Pandalet last won the day on September 19

Pandalet had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1398 Rare

5 Followers

About Pandalet

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

5768 profile views
  1. Merged similar suggestions (again).
  2. Moved to game guides. Might be worth posting to the wiki section also?
  3. Smeeeeg...heeeeads!
  4. Moved to client bugs - this sounds like a visual issue rather than an actual item-went-AWOL issue.
  5. Moved to suggestions. I'll also link this thread from the development update thread.
  6. So, while repeating Keenan's caveat that there hasn't been any decision made on this, and it's not my personal decision to make, it seems that for some people, having a sensible skill transfer will be enough to get them playing on Epic. However, for some this isn't sufficient. It seems clear to me that addressing this will be part of the solution (but not the whole solution), and that includes finding a way to not leave everything since 2017 out in the cold. Keenan has already covered the logistic difficulty in getting this right, even when we have a clear plan of what we want to do, so I'll just repeat that it's hard. Before we can work out the 'how' we need to settle on the 'what' - exactly what are we transferring (skill-wise), and how do the different skill systems translate back and forth? We need something that doesn't lead to massively OP corner cases, while also not penalising one side or the other. In my opinion, some small differences would be fine - say, channeling being 10% easier to skill on Epic than Freedom - to give some flavour and difference in play without unbalancing things. Perhaps some more cosmetic rewards may only be achievable one side or the other (e.g. titles). This is a complex problem, and there is a legacy of previous changes that has to be considered as well, which doesn't help. Unfortunately, overly simplistic solutions, applied too quickly are likely to just make the problem even worse, and increase the work required for the 'right' solution. I get that the situation is disheartening for some folks - it's not a great place for the dev team either; please be assured that although we don't have a fast answer ready to go, this is something we really do want to fix.
  7. Ok, I've been asked to intervene here. Official wiki policy has been explained, and while you don't necessarily have to like or agree with it, you do need to abide by it. You've made your opinion on the matter clear, and I'm sure it's something the wiki team will take under advice. You've been told how to submit percent-chance tables for skills (as a guide), which presumably can be linked to the relevant skill/item pages. There really doesn't appear to be anything more to say.
  8. Fair enough, I stopped reading there.
  9. As has been said, it's easy to focus on the worst possible interpretation of how the rules might be applied. The rules are (mostly) non-specific by design, as we expect all our moderators to apply judgement in every situation; the alternative would be a massive mess of really specific rules that would never cover every possible eventuality, would be a nightmare to read or maintain, and the people whose behaviour they're designed to prevent would be constantly picking loopholes anyway. To deal with the fact that sometimes interpretations of exactly how a rule applies or not may be subjective, every moderation team has an appeal and review process. In general, if a moderation action is unclear or you feel it's unwarranted, you can contact the moderator involved, or you can appeal it to the head of that department - see the Wurm staff post here https://forum.wurmonline.com/index.php?/topic/4976-wurm-online-staff/ for current leads. As a general rule, unless your behaviour is completely egregious, you will be first asked to modify your behaviour. Sometimes people simply didn't see something as offensive, or there are cultural differences, or whatever. This could be a chat moderator asking for a change in topic, or it could be a PM from a forum moderator. Formal sanctions generally follow where the behaviour involved is repeated, in spite of moderator involvement, or where reaction to moderation has been combative, offensive, or otherwise obstructive. If you've been asked not to do something by someone in a position of authority, and you continue to do it, I'm honestly not sure what you expect the result to be, other than formal sanction. I am not going to get into strawman arguments about ridiculously contrived examples. Wurm, and its various official associated communications channels, are made available contingent on participants being able to follow the stated rules, or where necessary, to obey moderators' directions (and the vast majority of people using these systems have no problem doing so). If you are unable or unwilling to do that, then you have no place here - there are, no doubt, plenty of places outside the official Wurm space with policies that would better suit. Disagreeing with a ruling does not remove the requirement that you follow it. If you are unsure about something, there are plenty of options to ask someone, and most of them don't involve posting publicly - while staff are not going to get into an endless circular argument about a particular event or point, they should always respond to a polite query (or at least, tell you where the query should be directed to).
  10. This is not the place to discuss ban specifics, certainly not before they have been officially announced. I get that there is a lot of public interest in this, but I ask that you be patient, and wait for Enki's post. If you are directly affected (i.e. one of the people who got banned), and you wish to query or appeal it, you should contact the GM team directly - you can do this via email or PM. Pandalet (LFM)