• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6 Neutral

About Aldaturo

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

719 profile views
  1. Same in Linux Mint 18.3 using
  2. That was indeed the case. Enabled that, and they now behave as expected (enabling 'Cast deity spells' for either role enables it). Thanks for assistance and apologies for the false report
  3. I borrowed a priest to cast Genesis on some of my horses, and found that I couldn't cast, with the following in the event tab [23:38:17] That would be very bad for your karma and is disallowed on this server. I took the priest to the token to see the permissions, and it showed the permissions for 'Ally', with 'Cast deity spells' enabled. After a bit of experimenting, I found that if I enable 'Cast deity spells' for the 'Non-citizen' role, the allied priest could cast on deed (whether or not it was enabled for the Ally role). Conversely, if it was disabled for 'Non-citizen' it was disallowed whether enabled for Ally or not).
  4. SIT works for Embark as Passenger on cart, wagon and ship. STANDUP works for Disembark from the same, if a cart, wagon or ship is highlighted, but not if a ground tile is highlighted. So what is missing is 'Embark as Commander' and 'Ride' (perhaps both could be covered by a COMMAND keybind?), plus disembarking from mounted animals and disembark when hovering ground tiles. To add the wishlist from my keymapping scripts, that hasn't been covered above: HITCH UNHITCH MOOR RAISE_ANCHOR SET_TOOL# (assigns hovered item to toolbelt slot) Not keybinds, but I'd also love to see the following console commands: savetoolbelt - like the SAVETOOLBELT keybind, but with a console command, I can save the current toolbelt before loading a different one in a console script skilltracker commands equivalent to the toolbelt commands, so I can switch skilltracker in console scripts saveskilltracker saveskilltracker <0-9> loadskilltracker <0-9> prevskilltracker nextskilltracker My scripts use a menu system for selecting a mode. If I select e.g. mining, I get mining actions on my action buttons (Z,X,C,V) and my 'resources' toolbelt loaded. At the moment I don't use more skilltracker slots, just fill slot0 up with my top selection, but I'd love to also get a context-specific skilltracker loaded along with the toolbelt and actions. Finally, the PLAN_BUILDING and FINALIZE_BUILDING keybinds doesn't work for me.
  5. My deed: Tranquility [1034, 937] Highway [689, 972], [882, 972], [887, 967], [895, 967], [895, 936], [936, 936], [945, 927], [1079, 927], [1081, 929], [1252, 929], [1262, 919], [1280, 919]
  6. Awesome update. One thing though - My Vyn priest can DIG, but not DIG_TO_PILE. I hope that's unintentional and that he'll be able to dig to pile soon. Thanks again
  7. My comments: Firstly, my primary use is to see what deeds/buildings would look like - the one thing I would really like to add is a floor-aware wurmian view - not necessarily up bridges between different levels, but if I could move the wurmian view up and down levels, that'd be great. For instance, I recently wanted to see the difference between walls and parapets on top of the third floor of one of my buildings. So went to a spot in the game, tried to align the 3d camera in WP to capture the same, switched to 2D and modified the building, then back to 3D. Perhaps there is a way to do this, but I couldn't find it. This brings me nicely on to my second point, I only use WP occasionally, and every time I need to relearn some of the keys to use. It would be great if there'd be a dialog or overlay with controls, as it'd save me finding the forum post with the controls. Thirdly, a feature I would really like would be to be able to copy and paste between different maps. For instance design a building in one file and insert it into a deed map dump. Again, this may be possible, but I can't find out how. Then about the poll itself: I can't see that much of a difference between the two options "Usable, but takes time to get used to" and "Good enough, but could use some improvements". So much so that I wasn't sure which was nearest the middle of the scale. It would probably help if the options were ordered from one extreme to the other. Finally, although I only use Deed Planner occasionally, I really appreciate the tool - so thank you very much for providing it.
  8. I've recently spent some time updating my quickswitch keybinds, which were originally based on Daray's repo. A long time ago, I replaced the 'settoolbelt' calls in the original with 'LOAD_TOOLBELT#' So I've got different toolbelts saved for different sorts of tasks, and my keybind scripts binds a set of action keys and load the toolbelt appropriate for those actions One idea I wanted to include in my update was to handle the skilltracker in a similar way. However, I discovered that there aren't console commands to load and save skilltrackers, only key bindings (unlike the toolbelt, which has key bindings and console commands. So I suggest adding the following console commands: nextskilltracker prevskilltracker loadskilltracker <0-9> saveskilltracker [<0-9>] If number is not provided, saves currently active slot The saveskilltracker command above has an optional argument, unlike savetoolbelt, which requires the toolbelt number. I propose making it optional for both, with no argument meaning 'the active one' savetoolbelt <0-9> --> savetoolbelt [<0-9>] Making the argument optional on save, means we can do this: savetoolbelt loadtoolbelt4 That is, if I modify a toolbelt, it's automatically saved if I swap to a different toolbelt via the keybind scripts
  9. I've been playing wurm since about 2005 (with some long breaks) and apart from the last beta, the only time I've played on PvP servers has been both Challenge rounds. Challenge suits me quite well. Because of that pesky RL, I occasionally need to take breaks of a few weeks or months from game. And even at my most intense, I can probably only play about 2 hours a night 4-5 nights per week. So a server that allows quick skill gain and resets fairly frequently is appealing for me to do PvP. Regarding people dropping out, I think that in the first round, it was running over Christmas, and I suspect I'm not the only one in wurm who had to reduce game time, if not stop altogether over the holidays. I think it is unavoidable that players will lose motivation to play if their kingdom is marginalised, its members will lose motivation. Whether or not the best alternative is to limit number of kingdoms to 2, I don't know. In BL vs WL, WL will have all three deities instead of Mag vs Fo+Vyn, which may shift the balance a bit. An alternative could be to try preventing kingdoms becoming marginalised - perhaps a two-phase Challenge, where there's an initial non-PvP phase at first, during which the kingdoms can establish themselves, before the full PvP kicks in. Regarding PMKs, I would lean against reintroducing them - at least in the form I remember from the first challenge (and it is quite likely to be different from how they were actually working, so please forgive my ignorance if my understanding is incorrect). My main sticking point is that as I remember, you couldn't spawn into PMKs from the tutorial, just the HOTS/JK/MR deeds. That introduces a slight imbalance in that the PMKs can control more who they let in, whereas HOTS/JK/MR can't. Of course this is easy to remedy - if someone makes a PMK, make it possible to join that from tutorial. Another thing is that if the map is designed for three kingdoms, which makes it somewhat easier to balance the map for those kingdoms, but that balance is easily lost once you've add another Kingdom Other random thoughts Consider adding a pelt to the starter kit. I know this is pretty easy to get, but it would allow you to upgrade your kit earlier. Things that take long times need to be faster - breeding, farming. Meditation is probably not even worthwhile on Challenge. Lots of things changed between the two first rounds of challenge - that makes it hard to spot causes for the different effects. What about running some challenges back to back on the same map (apart from ore map, starting points of uniques etc), but with small changes in rules between each? E.g. if the day after Dominance completed, another round started, same as Dominance but with e.g. PMKs enabled. Or a longer duration. Or without armour+weapons on spawn. Or whatever other single change
  10. None of the above... I've created a new character on Challenge, just to try it out, but based on what I've seen so far I don't think I'll stick around for long. However, I don't really identify fully with any of the options in the first section of the poll. I play solo, as in I have a deed with me and my alts, because I am limited by RL in how much time I can commit to wurm. I may play a couple of hours a one or two nights a week, or have a multiple-month break, or play intensively for a weekend, so I feel I can't be more committed to a community than helping as and when if I have opportunity to do so. So I think I would feel like I was letting the team down if I were to do PvP actively (or pretend to) But also, what is meant by "do you PvP"? To actively go out to seek conflict or play on a PvP as opposed to PvE server? I ask because I like the idea of helping out behind the scenes - be it as a miner or smith or farmer or whatever - on a PvP server, where even the what I do is part of a bigger picture, but also my inability to commit a lot of time wouldn't mean letting the team down to the same extent as if I was an active combatant. In fact that was very much my early experience of wurm, before it went gold (the first time), I wandered the wilderness for a few hours after starting, stumbled upon Kyara and was taken in by them. I joined late in the game, so I was never going to become a significant contributor, but I did what I could and very much enjoyed the community.
  11. When I first read this thread on my tablet, it had 3 pages. Now it has 21, and I won't have time to read them all, let alone post something afterwards. So if what I write below has already been suggested, please accept my apologies. On the highways, I suggest the following: Somehow, allow tiles to be marked as "public property" Have additional checks on permissions based on this, for instance Prohibit placing a structure on public property tiles Prohibit placing a fence on a border that has public property tiles on each side Prohibit digging on public property Make dropping dirt/sand on a public property tile make piles rather than terraform (need more stuff here to cater for other terraforming, like level/flatten) Make templars ignore KoS characters if they are on deed but on the public property Add functionality to create an application to make tile(s) public property, for instance A player can somehow acquire a "Create public property application form" (Tile context menu/trader?) With the form active, you get extra options in tile context menu: add tile/remove tile depending on whether tile is already on the form. (Should only be allowed to add deeded tiles if player has appropriate deed permissions) In the form context menu, there's a view tiles (brings up markers) and submit option Submitting the form will turn the tiles into public property, possibly pending a GM review of the tiles (which is probably a good safeguard) Add functionality to create an application to make changes to public property As above really, get form, add tiles to it, but also add a description of what it is for, e.g. "Re-routing highway" Submit, get accepted pending GM review, get the usual "roadworks approved by GM xxx" notice boards up Once accepted, the player holding the deed gets a "Planning permission" form for the tiles applied for, with a permission system so others can help do the work. In an interrim period allow players to get free forms (if they will be chargeable items); dispatch GMs to do mark existing highways; and/or write code to mark all tiles that meet the current definition of highways as "public property". Keep GM enforcement of the highways rule until this work is complete.
  12. I agree with much of what you say, but not everything. In particular that filtering through players is a core problem and that this whole thing is inherently a bad idea. Where you see a problem, I see a design challenge of the review process. End users, players in our case, are often very well place to come up with new ideas that can improve a product - yet at the same time they can be reluctant to change. As I read Johan's post, the aim is for the committee to summarise what discussion goes on in the forums already - to condense multiple forum pages worth of discussion, flamewar and tangents into an executive summary. Which I think is good - The options are to ignore or pay little attention to the S&I forum; or to have a non-player paid staff member do the summarising. In the latter case, I'd rather another coder or artist was hired... Also bear in mind that the devs are under no obligation to implement any suggestion made by players - in the forums or otherwise. And certainly won't be if the suggestions are ignored altogether, or if the devs don't read the suggestions in the forums because of low signal to noise ratio. A brief, balanced summary however, can provide high enough SNR that it's productive to read it, think about it, respond to it. Which brings me back to a design challenge of the review process. The devs probably already have an idea of how they would set this up. If the committee is tasked with providing a summary of a suggestion and the alternatives offered in the thread, along with views for and against, this can work, but as I said before, transparency is a key. Going by what I described in my previous post, there won't be filtering in the sense of someone sitting there picking the suggestions they like and ignoring the ones they don't like. A summary proposal would be submitted with a poll - you can pipe up there saying "you haven't captured point X made by Y" if you think the summary isn't a fair representation of the original thread. Ultimately, though, the summary could be completely ignored because the devs don't have to listen to us - But if this committee, however it works, leads to the devs being better informed on a the views of a large cross-section of the playerbase when making a decision, I think this is a good idea.