Community Assistant
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Sheffie last won the day on May 13

Sheffie had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

508 Excellent

About Sheffie

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

1282 profile views
  1. I can sell a papyrus sheet if it's ql 13.97 or below, but not ql 16.30 or above.
  2. In order to solve the problem of items being left in the game world, untouched, for a long time, I think we first need to understand the problem. (Opinions vary as to whether old / disused /decaying items in the world are actually depressing signs of abandonment, or a confirmation that players were once here and created things. Such arguments may be worth having in their own right — but it's difficult to see them leading to any conclusions relevant to this topic other than, either, that these items are indeed problematic, or that they're not.) Assuming for the moment that it is indeed a problem: What exactly is the problem? If it is clutter, then a solution should be proposed that directly addresses this. For example: removal of "clutter" items to a void space or limbo from which the original owner may reclaim them, either at their initial location or from another place such as a starter town. This wouldn't be much additional work for the server, and it would be considerably less for the client, because the items in question would not need to be displayed nor interacted with. If it is that the containers are going unused, then a solution should be proposed that directly addresses this. For example: the large number of unlocked containers that are already lying around in the world should be picked up and used. Alternatively, the large number of trees and iron veins in the world should be used to create new containers. (If this seems like a strange counterargument, it is because I consider this to be a strange argument in the first place.) If it is that decay leads to useful things going to waste, then a solution should be proposed that directly addresses this. For example: when a container is destroyed by decay, its contents are not destroyed, but are instead moved into some form of limbo, from which they may be recycled or recovered by players who have proven themselves worthy. (The exact process for demonstrating worthiness is beyond the scope of this post, but it should probably be more involved than finding a container and picking a lock.) If it is that avaricious players get upset when they see things that don't belong to them, well, PvP is always available. It does, of course, offer the possibility that other players might take your stuff. But that's only fair.
  3. Should be more prominent than any message involving BEES
  4. Perhaps the reason that we haven't seen a major change is that there is no consensus about what the change ought to be. Perhaps if we could agree on what we want, we might have a chance of getting it? (This isn't me talking as a member of the staff, but as a game designer with an interest in improving the design of this game.) I think that having people search for clues and/or fragments of dragon eggs would be a great mechanic. It allows larger or smaller groups of people to co-operate to create a dragon fighting event. What would happen once an egg is compete? I'd suggest that someone cast a Bless spell on it, making it whole and viable, and beginning a magical process that soon produces a hatchling. Potentially I'd have a full-grown dragon appear in the area, too, possibly even a pair. The chances of additional dragons could depend on the number of people around, which would introduce an element of uncertainty and risk, help encourage major group events (varied loot / more per person), and discourage the bringing of useless alts.
  5. So... what's the proposal here? A dragon cannot be sold after the player with claim to it has announced a public slaying in a public channel. (formatting added to make the proposal stand out) Is that it?
  6. Excellent! I hope to show up at some point with my 90 Leatherworking
  7. It occurs to me that people might be confusing different private hunting/trapping/slaying groups. For all this talk of everyone knowing who they are, it's quite possible that many readers don't. I'm part of a group which was founded and is organized by Sinnjinn. This group has held a fair number of public slayings... ... as have several other groups, of course. Our group is pretty open about what we do. We spend significant amounts of time hunting for unique creatures. We offer to buy the claim on any dragon that the finder is unable to trap for themselves. We also offer to kill any unique that the finder is unable to kill for themselves. And we're also open about what we don't do. We don't pen up unique creatures for long periods, for example. In the interests of shedding more light and less heat, here's my account of what happened on the day of the rift and Angry Red Dragon slaying. Our slaying group mobilized (via private Discord) on hearing that a dragon had been found near the location of the rift. At the same time, I alerted other Wurm staff members (again via private channels) of the potential for drama in the area. I arrived to find the area crawling with dragon hunters. There was some debate about whether the original finder had given up their claim by leaving the Local area that the dragon was in. A counterpoint was made that the dragon had been "kited" away from its finder. A second player attempted to lure the dragon into a mine, to trap it, but my understanding is that this didn't work because the mine was outside of the dragon's "leash" radius. Other players, needless to say, tried to assert their own claims. Members of Sinnjinn's group were among them. Around this time, GM Confucius appeared in the area and began investigating. Ultimately, the ruling was that the original finder had *not* given up their claim by leaving the dragon's Local. (The etiquette guide says that the claim is forfeit by leaving "the area" without specifying a number of tiles; meanwhile, the finder had clearly not given up on the dragon.) After the ruling from GM Confucius that the original claim still stood, Sinnjinn offered to buy the dragon from the finder, which was accepted. The group then proceeded to open a new mine and trap the dragon, while the original finder kited it around in circles. The issue was slightly complicated because the second player, who had been attempting to trap the beast, contributed a Shaker Orb to the trapping effort. Members of Sinnjinn's group, and the second player, took part in a private slaying later on that day, each player contributing an equal amount to the expenses. (It's my understanding that the cost of the Shaker Orb was figured in to the contributions.) I hope that this helps to put other accounts into perspective, and to explain what happened on the day in question.
  8. I think that, at one time or another, I've held most of the opinions shared in this discussion. Certainly I can sympathize with most of the positions I've seen. I remain a firm believer in public events, and I contribute to impalongs, public slayings, and Rift battles whenever I can. These are a great way to build community spirit and to develop friendships between players. However, having joined a group that hunts, traps, buys, and kills uniques, I also have a much better appreciation of just how difficult that can be. There is something about dragons that tends to foster a very entitled, avaricious attitude among players. I'd like everyone to bear a few things in mind, when discussing the matter. It is possible to change the etiquette covering unique slayings. The way to do this is to persuade a significant majority of players that the new rules would be better for the community as a whole. That means, making positive statements about your proposed system, not making negative statements about other players. It is possible to change the game code so that, for example, loot drops according to a different algorithm, in order to change how players behave. The essential path to such a change is the same as before — persuading people to adopt a new consensus as to what's best for the game as a whole — but the bar is set significantly higher, because you also need to persuade the developers to accept the risk and the cost of making such a change. Any new rules proposal, whether a change in etiquette or in game code, needs to address the following: What current problem does your proposal solve, and how? What side effects does your proposal have? How directly does it address the problem? How might cynical, intelligent, resourceful players, acting individually or as a group, abuse or exploit your new system? What mechanisms are in place to prevent that? If you don't have an answer for this question, don't worry. Someone else will.
  9. Does exactly what it says on the tin. While the player holds down the Ctrl key (or whatever other key may have been assigned), the UI will print the name of each player above their head. No titles, meditation or other fluff, just the user name, printed in a small but readable font. This would help quite a bit in social events, I think. Any time that more than five or six people are together, it can be difficult to figure out which avatar corresponds with which name. And if you want to trade with someone, or heal them, having names above their head is a tried and tested way of finding them. And because it's only on screen while you hold down the magic key, it's not going to detract from the gameplay. Is this going to break the frame rate in a rift battle where 100 players are clustered in a few tiles? Perhaps. If so, the feature could be restricted to players within a few tiles. It would still be very useful.
  10. The cost of silver in the shop is the same on NFI and SFI. Likewise, the cost of premium time, deed upkeep, and rewards are the same. Which cluster is "cheaper" or "more lucrative" depends on whether you're an unskilled worker, a grinding min/max smith or priest, or a whale looking to buy everything. SFI has more islands, more unique creatures, more rift battles, more abandoned deeds, more ways to get to PvP. NFI has terrain generated with (I would say) a more mature and realistic touch. Currently this last opinion is the one that persuades me to stay on NFI.
  11. Rabbits, as seen in Monty Python And The Holy Grail
  12. I think that there is no resale market — until there's a way to recover a skin from the item it's on.
  13. TL/DR: rowing boats should carry a small crate sailing boats should carry a large crate big ships should be able to tow and/or load boats no volunteers to dig deeper tunnels no consensus on buffing the corbita