• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Ostentatio last won the day on January 8

Ostentatio had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1614 Rare

1 Follower

About Ostentatio

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    SW Xanadu


  • Acc1
  • Acc2

Recent Profile Visitors

4659 profile views
  1. You informed me via PM that the quality of the mixed dye was in the 20s. There is no way for this to happen by mixing 99QL and 50QL dye unless there was very significant damage on the 50QL dye.
  2. Mixing two dye items together always skewed the color toward grey, to some degree or another. This is not new, and was not introduced with any recent changes.
  3. The QL of the dye after combining was 28QL. QL is a weighted average, so what must have happened here was a tiny amount of 99QL dye being mixed into a much larger amount of low QL dye. The final RGB value is modified by the QL of the result, which in this case was 28 QL, so rather low. Again, if you disagree with how the mechanic works, you can post a suggestions thread, but there is no bug here, and this was already documented in the wiki. I'm sorry that you lost some of the value on an item you paid a lot of in-game money for, but it was done through normal and intended game mechanics, and that is not something we can compensate for.
  4. Given the details provided in PM from Platyna, this is working as intended. The color of combined dye relies on more factors than a simple average of the colors of the dyes being combined. For example, QL of the dye matters, and in this case, the dye was of rather low QL, explaining why it is closer to grey than intended. This is also documented in Wurmpedia already: If you disagree with how this mechanic works, you can post a suggestion about it, but there's no bug here. We do not generally replace items that were destroyed or altered through normal game mechanics. Additionally, the purchase or creation of items created through the use of bugs is always at your own risk.
  5. Were you the one to place the bowl (or pan, or other cooking vessel) into the oven/fire/forge? If not, take it and then drop it in yourself, and do the same for the ingredients, just to be on the safe side.
  6. Even better: We've confirmed the problem and have located its source, and it will be fixed for the next server update. Thanks for the details you've all provided! That sort of feedback really does help us track things down quicker sometimes.
  7. This might be another silly question, but just trying to cover all bases here: Are the Fo altars above ground?
  8. Were the animals with the problem above-ground or below-ground? Were they hitched to anything? And are you sure they didn't have a negative trait that got removed, but that you couldn't see beforehand due to low Animal Husbandry skill?
  9. I was replying mostly to Etherdrifter's post, which seemed to imply that favor regeneration itself was nerfed at some point, which it was not.
  10. Yeah, the point being made about gems is my mistake; it would never go into the overflow pool since it won't give you more than you need anyway. Will edit that out of the post.
  11. Regarding the "pending favor" change: Natural favor regeneration has not been changed with this update. Due to some lag compensation related issues in the code, there may have been a temporary period where people on some servers were actually experiencing higher than normal Favor regeneration, so some people seem to have gotten the impression that the natural Favor gain rate was lowered at some point. It was not; there was just a short period recently, for maybe 2 or 3 days, when it was too fast on some servers. We'll be making some tweaks to how Favor in the overflow pool decays when your Favor is full. This mechanic is intended to prevent people using it for long-term storage or as an alternative to gems, but we agree that currently it is far too harsh a penalty and makes it difficult to use for its intended purpose. We introduced the feature knowing that some tweaks may be necessary to get it to a point where it feels right, and will be making changes to that effect. The pool will drain significantly more slowly when Favor is full. There will be a delay between adding pending Favor to the pool and the pool decaying, so you will no longer start losing Favor from the overflow pool immediately. This delay will not apply to actually adding Favor from the pool, only to the decay applied when your Favor is already full. Overflowing your Favor by sacrificing animals will also add to the pending Favor pool, in addition to sacrificing items at altars.
  12. Update (again): Since there have been a lot of questions regarding how this feature will be implemented, we've decided to give some further details before it goes live: Sacrificing items will still give you as much favor as possible when the item is sacrificed. Any sacrificed item favor that would overflow your favor bar will be put into a pool of pending favor, which will function as described in the first post in this thread. Pending favor will not regenerate current favor while you are in combat, in order to prevent this feature from negatively affecting PvP. In other words, you will still get favor instantly, and only the amount that would now be wasted will go into the "pending favor" pool and be given back to you over time. For example, if you have 70 Favor out of 90 maximum, and sacrifice 120 Favor of items, you will received 20 Favor immediately to max out your current Favor, with the remaining 100 going into the "pending" pool and being given to your character gradually.
  13. You weren't ignored in the first place. We offered a feedback thread, players posted feedback, we agreed there were some legitimate concerns raised, and we've made changes to the feature as a result.
  14. In that thread, I mentioned that the player feedback offered in the thread would be considered when implementing anything. As mentioned in the post you're replying to here, those concerns are being addressed and more details will come.