• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Aldaturo

  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.
  13. Great work on features and assets as always. I thought I'd chime in on the player interaction - I think it is a good idea and can, if implemented well, work well. But if not implemented well, it can probably do more harm than good. The main requirements for success, as I see it, are trust in the group (both from the devs and from the players) and transparency. Devs trusting the group - They are putting trust in other players already GM/CA etc, so I think they can handle themselves Players trusting the group - This is an interesting one. I trust my in-game neighbours and allies, and this trust is based on interacting with them and observing their interaction with others. But I may interact very little with a reviewer especially so one on a different server, so how can I build up trust with them? The answer to that is, I think, ... Transparency - At minimum, I should be able to read the "refined suggestion". Better yet, I should be able to make comment on it - this would allow me to interact and/or observe interactions, and I can build up a trust that their summaries will, in general, be fair. One way this could work, would be to use the forums. Create two new publicly viewable boards, S&I Reviews and S&I Summaries. In S&I Reviews, the only the reviewer group can create new posts, and will post new summaries with a poll - where the options are something like "Good to go" and "Needs amending [see below]" and comments enabled. Discussion should be limited to the review vs original thread(s), and the fairness/balance of the review, the extent to which it captures the views in the original discussion etc, but not the subject matter of the original thread. Of course the review should not be edited when the poll is active, the reviewer(s) could make a judgment call on whether to restart the poll (lots of significant amendments) or just amend the review without further review (none/few/insignificant amendments). In S&I Summaries, the reviewer group posts summaries (possibly with amendments) that meet set criteria (e.g. X % "Good to go" votes) As someone else said, the devil is in the detail, and I've omitted some further thoughts for the sake of brevity
  14. And enabling transferral of premium time would effectively make buying premium with silver cheaper. Instead of 10s a month, you're creating a market place where to sell, someone will have to undercut that price. Bear in mind that the silver in the game has initially been purchased with real cash, and premium-for-silver removes silver from the in-game economy. CodeClub may simply not want to allow that to happen at a lower ratio than 10s/month. Buying premium for silver doesn't mean it's free. It just means that someone else pays real money. It is actually better for CodeClub that people buy premium with silver as long as enough silver is brought into the game economy using real money. In reality, I suspect that the availability of "left over time" would be relatively low - how many would pay for a year if they aren't sure they'd play for a year. If it was me and I'd only just started playing, I'd buy 2months or 1m+5s. When I'd decided to stay long-term, I'd consider buying a year's time in one go. The last sentence in the quote only makes sense if you could only buy premium for a year. Yes, if you had to buy a year or stay f2p, and weren't sure you'd stay, it'd be easier if you could sell excess time if you leave the game before the year is up. But it makes little sense in the current situation where you can buy 2m or 1m+5s, especially if you can only sell premium time in excess of 30 days! Additionally, I would argue the opposite as well - If they know they can't sell their remaining time, they have more incentive to stay and use up the time. Maybe their passion for wurm will be reignited in this time! I wouldn't say I can see it end up hurting Rolf. I do think that being able to donate time already purchased (whether using € or silver) and allocated to a character may have unintended consequences that I think will be avoided with a shop option to purchase time for another player. Type in your username and password as usual, then there's a box on the page with the purchase options where the name of the character that should be given whatever you purchase, defaulted to the name of the character you logged in with. Or as I suggested above - using "premium time gift certificates" that you give to someone in-game. No it doesn't. Buying time with silver removes silver from the game economy. That silver was ultimately bought from Rolf by someone. Just to tie this up a bit, I think it makes a lot of sense to be able to buy premium time for other characters. I think donating already-purchased time is unfortunate, because a) being able to donate/sell remaining time when quiting is small/no incentive to purchase premium given the premium purchase options. being able to sell remaining time is incentive to quit before your time is up. c) being able to donate left-over time means it can be sold, undercutting CodeClub prices. d) I suspect donating time already allocated to a player is more complex, and therefore risky, to implement than donations of "fresh" time from the shop or a gift cert. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think there are possibly two distinct issues in your original post: 1) Being able to donate premium at € rates rather than silver rates. 2) Being able to donate less than a month's worth of premium The first can be addressed by the ability to be able to buy the premium for someone else in the shop. The second can be addressed by gift certificates . Maybe 8x 1-week certs for €10? or 4x for 10s, 1x for 3s. Also, players who go premium for the first time using a gift cert should not be given a referral.
  15. 2 months premium and 10 silver each cost €10 in the shop. 1 month premium can be bought ingame for 10s. Presumably to give those who can't pay for premium an option to work for their premium, whilst still giving an incentive to those who can pay to pay for it. Don't allow transferring premium time to another character. Add an option to buy a non-drop "premium time gift card" in the shop and in the game. You can give these to the player you want to donate time to, and they "use" it to add the premium time to their account.
  16. @Kegan: Outside of PVP it's mostly about aesthetics anyways. I mean yes, you can use tall walls or palisades to prevent people from taking a peek at your settlement. But you can also use tall stone walls with gatehouses to completely block view (unless you're viewing from above). And although there may be some fence-bashing mobs out there, in most PVE cases you're just as well off with a wooden fence. At least if you're ondeed and have more than a month's upkeep. Personally, I prefer to use stone or iron fences for aesthetics. @Ezalor: Yes, but adding a view-blocking "Large Wooden Wall Gate" to be used with tall stone walls would be great. Would eliminate the need for a gatehouse :-)
  17. Both? I think that there are examples of more random looking palisades as well as the fairly regular one posted by BjornYngvar. How about having a more regular-looking one as posted by BjornYngvar, as well as having a gapped, more random, one. The regular one is great for defending against players; the random one looks like a better option for keeping out mobs than our current wooden fences, which look like they should only be sufficient for keeping friendly animals in an enclosure :-) If we can only have one, I don't think it should completely block view - should mostly block it though. Also, as ReaverKane starts "Plus, while you're at it, ..." would you consider adding a portcullis (maybe it will require a multistory building though)?
  18. When I say "as you get better" I mean the player (or user as you call him/her) as opposed to the character (toon). I'm indifferent to "more stuff for the same timer" or "same amount of stuff on a shorter timer" - I think what matters is overall throughput (how much flour can you make in 30m, for instance). My main thing is that the cost of increased throughput should be increased user interaction. And yes, I would like to see player (or user) skill affect efficiency, although not just how fast you can mash your keyboard or select menu items. Hence my suggestion for a micro-game that simulates operating the windmill. True, fixed costs does matter. My point was that if it is expensive to build, few if any beginners will build them, but established players will. If it offers improved throughput, windmills would be biased towards established players. If the price of increased throughput is increased maintenance costs, then the building is available to more players. That's a game balance detail that need to be taken into consideration. Keeping things in balance is more than ensuring overall throughput doesn't change. Keeping balance means to make sure that if there is a market, don't give strong incentives for sellers to withdraw. Keeping balance means that if I've sacrificed time/clicks/wrists on a project, I shouldn't be able to accomplish the same in significantly less cost after X is introduced. Keeping balance means that the relative difficulty for beginners and veterans needs to stay the same. My reaction to this thread was: Windmills? Why not? It's in-character for Wurm? I like that. OP's suggested functionality like grindstone, but with a 0.1-1s timer boost depending on wind: What? Windmills needs to perform much better than grindstones. We're talking a big leap in technology here. So my view is this: Windmills are in-character for Wurm. They are a step change in tech from a grind stone - that ought to be reflected in Wurm. So windmills should give step improvement over grind stone. Although a windmill might have been a game-changer in real life, we don't want a game-changer in Wurm, so this improvement can't come for free. My question then is how can we combine step improvement without turning it into a game-changer? The current cost of production is time and clicks. Many do something else whilst the timer runs, and seem happy to do so. I would argue that that makes time less cost and more necessary evil. The idea behind the operate-the-machine approach is to give improvement at the cost of increased interaction. Timer can stay the same, but require you to interact with the game throughout. In addition, if the interaction is responding to RNG, macro is harder than it currently is. It's easier to write a macro to navigate a menu using pixel text recognition than it is to write a macro issuing the correct response to random events - first you need to find out what the correct response is. Less risk of macroing should mean it's more likely we can get keybinds :-)
  19. +1. There's this, which probably covers a lot of what you are asking. Adding a "combine" checkbox on FSB/BSB take dialog would be nice. Even better would be "take x bunches of y items". Leave y as 1 by default and you have the current functionality.
  20. Skills Move away from a timer-based approach to crafting/skilling where possible. (Time it takes to make something needn't change, but where possible, engage the player more when crafting) When each skill is based on a few templates, practising the skill gets boring quickly. For instance, carpentry/tailoring/smithing/pottery are based on the same template - there are a few tools required to finish/improve and the raw materials and products are different, but other than that, you keep doing the same thing over and over again (select tool, click, wait for timer. Rinse and repeat). Another template is the basic resource gathering - mining, digging - which is even simpler (click, wait for timer) This encourages people to stack commands and then go do something else (watching a film, get a cup of tea etc) - a bit like ad breaks on TV. Waiting for timers is not what we're really interested in, but it is a necessary evil. I think it would massively boost the game's appeal if changes were made to address this. I think there are several possible methods that can be used for this - in a way that can be "bolted on" to the the current situation, rather than replace it. Different methods are suitable for different things, but all aim to give an alternative to waiting for timers. Here are a few ideas, and although I plug them when I can, my main concern is not the suggestions in itself, but an attempt to shift the emphasis away from the action timer. Add an element of research to give current skills more depth (e.g. as I outlined for HFC). Add new methods for making existing bulk materials that work in parallel to the current method. Require user interaction and enable higher yield, faster manufacture and/or higher ql depending on player skill. See as applied to Windmills. Design to avoid... a) commodity inflation achievement inflation c) allowing macroing/benefits from being idle d) making current methods redundant. Add new materials that may only be manufactured by multiple players cooperating (e.g. a tool that needs 2+ operators) Starter server I played wurm before it went gold, then again on GV, and recently resuscitated my GV account before creating an alt, going through the tutorial and settling at Deli a few months later. I think the tutorial is good at explaining the UI, and the basics of crafting, but doesn't give a good impression of what playing wurm is like. Unfortunately, If my experience of landing at Deli is anything to go by, the transition from spoon-fed tutorial to the harsh reality of Wurm is brutal. If that was my first ever experience of wurm, I don't think I'd stay for long. Because of this, I think Wurm/CodeClub would benefit from reintroducing a starter server. Sure, GV had its problems, but the fact it was a starter server wasn't the problem. I think there were subtle flaws in how GV was set up, in particular that you had to be premium to move and you could still have lots of fun on GV. There simply wasn't a strong incentive to leave - unless you *wanted* to pay. Because of this, lots of non-premiums stayed on GV, despite not being beginners any more. This caused crowding, which made it harder for the beginners. My suggestion would be to re-introduce a starter server, where you spawn after you complete the tutorial, with the following modifications from GV: Allow non-premiums to move from the starter server. Severely limit the starter server. For instance Restrict skills (not characteristics) to 10 on starter server. Possibly only make a subset of skills available? Remove some features (e.g. only iron veins?) Have only low-level animals (rats/cats/dogs/pigs?) available in the wild - enough to get a relatively safe introduction to PVE and taming, where you have a realistic chance of winning but can still get a beating or even die. [*]Have lots of cool stuff on the starter deed to showcase what you can do once you move on, including animals and buildings etc. [*]Reset the starter server at regular intervals. Or maybe better - if possible - run 4 instances on the same server, each with identical maps, each reset every 4 weeks. If you start in week 1,5,9... you spawn on server 1; if week 2,6,10 on server 2. That way you'll get 3-4 weeks maximum on the island, depending on which day you join it. Show popup when you log in on the island with the number of time until the island is reset. If you log on after reset, get option for which server to go to and be moved to that server immediately. The intended outcome is a more gentle introduction, so the new player can discover the wonders of wurm, get to grips with the game, and get a desire to do more, before getting frustrated.
  21. That may be Torgrim's assumption, and it may well be a valid assumption. But the playerbase is diverse, and each player will have different preferences. There are many ways that can cause market failure. Seller/Buyer prices don't meet up and insufficient supply and/or demand are the typical examples. As you say, distance and timezone can be an issue as well. Even if there is sufficient supply and demand across the whole the server cluster, the supply and demand may be insufficient on your server, or in your local area. Changing production speed may, as a side effect, compensate for a broken market. It will also, as a side effect, cause a different kind inflation - if you don't have to work as hard to achieve something, it makes the achievement worth less. Maybe not for you, but for others, it will. A major part of the appeal of this game for many players is the sense of achievement after toiling away to reach a goal. In discussions on why people leave wurm soon after joining, the I've-built-my-house-now-what factor is often mentioned. That means this kind of "achievement inflation" is toxic for Wurm. That is why increased production throughput is the wrong solution to the market failure. I agree that the market needs fixing, and Wurm does need improvements to traders/merchants. I also think that a larger playerbase would most likely help the market, e.g. it may mean that there are more players online when you are, near enough to where you live, so that it makes markets more viable at a local scale. There are also ways around the timezone issue - build a 1x1 shack, put a chest and a BSB in it, add seller to the writ and agreed cost to the chest. Arrange with seller to deposit materials and take money. Of course there is a risk of getting conned, so you may not want to do this. And obviously, this would be much more viable if you could add friends remotely. Is it the time or the clicks that is the issue? or both? Because I see them as different issues with different possible solutions. Maybe what we need to do, is to clarify the distinct issues brought up and create separate threads to find good solutions to the specific issues, rather than having the same discussion multiple threads (e.g. windmills/sawmills threads). For instance: Improve the UI to make it require less clicks. Adjust the production throughput (higher yield or faster timers)
  22. +1. I think a special tool should be required - engraving is done using gravers or burins (same thing, different name), but agree that engraving can be high-skill JS bonus, and that JS skill can determine length of message.