Kohle

For the trove of screenshots that were recently posted to a public cloud drive detailing internal discussions, I'm not aware of anyone who was banned nor anyone who disputed their veracity. This seems to refute the idea that it's "impossible" to present the "put up or shut up" proof requested and also avoid targeted retribution.

@Archaedhas been both tremendously giving and helpful and also a good sport whenever I (or others) tease him about something. He richly deserves both "Facepalm Lifetime Achievement" award and the "Lifetime Heart in the Right Place" award.

I swore that I was able to do this last year. If the devs confirm that this was never "a thing," could someone please add a note and then move this to Suggestions? What I get is You cannot smelt that right now. The smelting pot is glowing blue or white as is the snowman head. The pot is 70 QL with less than a point of damage. The snowman heads on which this was attempted were all lower QL than the smelting pot and were also glowing at the same level as the pot. The pot was/is able to smelt other objects at the same time as testing under the same conditions.

... and you thought I was joking! 🙂

I'd just like to know if we can make arrows from these thorns that are able to pierce dragon armor and cause damage. 🙃

Some of us bookmarked the old shop and hit our bookmark to go spend monies. And spend, I did -- because the Black Friday deals aren't on the old shop. Yes, I saw all the complaining back when the new web site was rolled out and the subsequent apologies. I had no idea that the URLs had changed. And I see that some folks have been on here suggesting that either the deals be added to the old shop or that the URL be redirected. Heck, a banner on the page saying "Click here for Black Friday deals!" would have worked. I'm not too salty about it, because I caught it after one 12 month resub purchase. And, at this point, there's only just over 24 hours left, anyway. Not much time to fix it. But -- well, dangit, that just wasn't very nice. What would be nice is a credit of some kind, but I can already hear the excuses of how hard it would be to draw the cut-off line. Like the subject says, I'm mostly just wingeing about it -- but also hoping you won't do it again next year.

@Finnn what was your prompt for that output? (I'm curious if I could constrain it with deed size, uneven terrain yet buildings must be on flattened land, etc, etc)

"Hello!! How are you?" Withold 890 (Hanza - J24) should be at [7060,3346]. Withold 514 (Hanza Guard Tower) should be at [7007,3350]. Hanza deed token [7046,3349]. Withold's arched bridge [[7036,3411],[7036,3419]]. unnamed bridge [[7042,3406],[7051,3405]]. Wolfen Bridge [[6974,3429,[6973,3434]]

I have it on good authority that this has been addressed.

The above (as "export GDK_BACKEND=X11") solved the "assertion 'GDK_IS_X11_DISPLAY (display)' failed" error for me. Thank you!

I haven't quite accumulated one million channel points yet - which makes this all the more generous of her.

@Malenawas exceedingly generous and incredibly kind to gift me this lovely bit of her art, and it's simply too beautiful for me to keep to myself. With her blessing, I'm sharing with you all.

I appreciate @Etherdrifter sharing the data. I've said so. Repeatedly. Granted, I'm less enthused by characterizations like "in freefall" and "unhealthy", but he's entitled to express his opinion. The numbers are quite public and available for anyone to use to perform their analysis. Except there's really not much analysis of anyone else's own, is there? There's eleven pages of, as @Archaed put it, "this is the result of them not doing what I'd like to see." And I let it roll off my back until @elentari threw down the gauntlet of "I dare any player that argues "you can enjoy wurm without subscribing once" play for an entire year having all their skills locked at 20 and play with those limitations." As for "muddying the post," after eleven pages of "squabbling" about "this is the result of them not doing what I'd like to see," I believe that ship sailed long before now.

Fair point. I admit to using a bit of shorthand. As you point out, all of those statements are, semantically, facts. However, all but the first actually represent underlying opinions. That opinions exist is a fact. That people hold opinions is a fact. That people sometimes base their opinions on underlying facts -- is a fact. None of those makes an opinion into a fact. The implication -- or outright explicit statement -- that so-and-so should do such-and-such is a "fact" -- or that failing to do such-and-such is factual evidence of antipathy, negligence or animosity is wrong. It's also unproductive (in my experience). I want to make very clear that you, @Etherdrifter, are generally staying away from that line of conversation. Since you've now brought it up twice in short order, let me address this: So -- who said that "never-preme" has, or should, contribute noticeably to the game's population? You're welcome to show me where I missed it, but I don't remember once seeing Code Club or Game Chest say, "We expect a noticeable percentage of our player population to be never-premmers." My experience with freemium has always been clearly targeted at "try-before-you-buy." Whatever vague recollection I have of statements made by Code Club would be that they fell somewhere in line with the "try-before-you-buy" model. I disagree that Wurm Online's current free-to-play offering is intended to be, or equivalent to, "never-preme". I therefore reject the inference that Code Club / Game Chest should do away with their free-to-play offering as being based in facts somehow. I'm also going to walk out onto a limb and start sawing by challenging this statement a bit: Reducio ad absurdum, yes. A zero-population game isn't a healthy game. A declining population is not, in and of itself, "unhealthy." The list of games whose populations skyrocketed and then dropped is a long one. If you'd like to argue that every one of those games is unhealthy -- well, it's your right, but it isn't factual. My definition of game "health" is whether the developer and/or publisher are profitable, or are seen by their creditors as likely to be. And the only ones who know that are Code Club, Game Chest and their creditors. Here again we arrive at the paucity of data. (I liked your use of the phrase, so I'm reusing it.) My point, by the way, is not that "I'm right and you're wrong." My point is that you and I define game "health" in different ways, and the "if" of your "cold, hard fact" is neither indisputable nor does it actually promote the opinion of Wurm Online's health into being factual. We care about this game. We are creative. We have professional-level skills. Brainstorming for ideas and giving feedback constructively is a blessing for any community. Sharing data is great. Sharing ideas is great. Being passionate is great. Keep it positive -- or at least neutral. Have empathy. Be excellent,.

@Etherdrifter I don't dispute anything you've said there. So is this a thread about server populations (or population trends), donkeys, or how players think the game ought to be managed and marketed? Is it opinion or fact? "Can't it be both?" Yes, it can. What I object to is conflating the two -- presenting opinion as fact. Server populations have declined. That's a fact. Why they have declined, "given the paucity of data," is the writer's opinion. Whether a decline is "good" or "bad" is an opinion. Is an opinion valid? Usually. Does being valid make that opinion a fact? No, it does not. Server populations have declined. Fact. Some of you don't like it when server populations decline. Opinion. Some of you don't like how Wurm Online has been marketed. Opinion. Some of you don't like the business decision made around Wurm Unlimited. Opinion. Some of you don't like certain changes to Wurm Online. Opinion. Some of you think the work spent making changes you don't like should have been spent making changes that you would like. Opinion. @elentari Lovely ideas. Lovely opinions. Thought out. Reasonable. Your experience? Totally valid and within your rights to express. You might. Absolutely. You might also try that shots-worth of beer, spit it out, and be damn glad you didn't pay 10 euro for the full bottle. Or you might think to yourself, "Hmm. That's pretty good. I'd take a bottle of that," and feel good about spending your 10 euro. Can you sit there, drinking one shots-worth of beer at a time, in between waiting for the bartender to come 'round again, until you've consumed a beer bottle's worth of beer? Yes, you can. Is that why bars or brewers offer free beer? Usually not. Would you enjoy it? Apparently not. Would someone else? They might. Do players like free stuff more than stuff they have to pay for? Almost universally. Wouldn't it be great if we could all get all the free stuff we want? Hard to argue against. Do I believe that you're smart enough to know that's not how reality works? Yes; yes, I do. Do I believe that you are passionate about Wurm Online and that you have come up with, in your opinion, a reasonable compromise that will lead to a long-term benefit to the game? Again, yes. Are these two very different statements? Yes, they very much are - as much as the difference between "it's free" and "it's free, but..." I'm triggered by you -- and many other players -- expressing yourselves by telling me what I should and shouldn't, can and can't, do. by telling Wurm what it should and shouldn't, can and can't, do. Check yourselves. And if you can't be arsed to, then don't be surprised when your passionate and otherwise well-thought-out expressions and suggestions vanish into a dark void.