Sindusk

Members
  • Content Count

    815
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    31

Sindusk last won the day on July 4

Sindusk had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1985 Rare

About Sindusk

  • Rank
    Villager

Recent Profile Visitors

8249 profile views
  1. Maybe everyone is just breeding incorrectly. If traits are rarely being passed down from parents, doesn't it stand to reason that breeding horses with bad traits together will result in amazing ones?
  2. Most of the negative reviews are quite literally targeting developers and staff for poor conduct or inaction. Here's the top 10 "Most Helpful" reviews according to Steam: Traslogan (Negative) - 526 Helpful Nadroj (Negative) - 442 Helpful Lord Bob Saget (Positive) - 359 Helpful Jenshae (Negative) - 337 Helpful Dilbert (Negative) - 336 Helpful Malfor (Negative) - 314 Helpful Armynator (Negative) - 292 Helpful Wood (Negative) - 220 Helpful Nepocrates (Negative) - 219 Helpful Jocktor (Negative) - 212 Helpful Honorable Mentions: EpicPhail (Negative) - 211 Helpful Tiny Rick (Positive) - 168 Helpful If I missed one highly voted in the list, it's because Steam doesn't actually allow you to sort by reviews rated most helpful. I had to manually scroll through several pages and find the ones with the highest votes. Personally, I'd rather see the concerns mentioned in the reviews addressed rather than respond to the reviews themselves.
  3. They gave up on this roadmap and are working on Wurm VR now.
  4. Announcement? Communication? You're expecting too much.
  5. Ideas

    A bit of a misconception there. It's actually incredibly easy to create a new monster and implement it into the game. You can see examples here for many of the creatures I made in Wurm Unlimited, many of which took less than an hour to code. I imagine the new donkey creature being implemented took more time to create a model for than to actually add into the game.
  6. I don't want the game to go the path of so many others in the past. I don't want to see the community slowly fizzle out and Wurm Online end up abandoned. This game has been around for so long and I want to see it continue since it's been so enjoyable for me in the past 5 years since I started playing. Others have played for a decade or more. There's so many lessons capable of being learned from other successful games out there with successful business models. I'd like to see Wurm Online adapt to the current gaming market, and others here are suggesting the same. At the end of the day, a forum is for discussion about topics. A topic was presented, and people are discussing it. I don't agree with everything others have said, but I'm not so vain as to call them self-serving because of their interpretation of the data. If you'd like to disagree with their interpretation, I think you should use counterpoints to the data or logic against their statements. You shouldn't attack the person who's presenting their viewpoint.
  7. They aren't random times, they're intervals. Measuring active players over time always uses some form of interval. Whether it be a minute, an hour, or when the number changes, there's an interval somewhere. Can you explain how this information, using 1 hour intervals, is not reliable? Where do you see the upticks? I want to see those, but I can't find them in the data being collected. Month over month the active player count has declined. Combined with the investor relations press releases from GameChestGroup, it's evident that subscriber numbers continue to decrease. So far, nothing I've stated in this post has been "conjecture" or "opinion" - everything stated above is simply fact. With that said, from here on I will begin adding some opinion. The game continues to decline completely in spite of existing updates. Take a look at the Steam Charts, with tags for each significant update over the past year. This information does not include non-steam players, but tracks at a roughly stable percentage of the data in this thread (about 1/3 of the total player count). Compare this information to other games, and you'll see a very stark difference. "But wait, No Man's Sky has a huge studio of many people working on the game! It's not a fair comparison!" You don't need a huge team to have a successful update structure. Take a look at the game recently added to Steam "Legends of Idleon MMO" - a game developed by a single developer which includes a mobile version not present in the Steam Charts data. Here is an image taken directly from their dev blog post discussing the health and future of the game. He then goes on to analyze the data, describing how he interprets it as the game community growing. Updates with games almost always coincide with an increase in players. Generally, it's players returning to engage with the new content. However, with upticks in player activity, new players are also more willing to try out the game. Wurm has a significant lack of this happening, and the result is players blaming the development team. Whether it's actually the fault of the development team is definitely an opinion, but one backed by significant amounts of data. Not just data from Wurm, but the gaming industry as a whole. When every other game has a pattern of growth that can easily be seen through the data, when Wurm is devoid of that same pattern, it's a red flag that something has gone wrong. The current data tracks similarly to other games that have completely died out due to the game losing so many players that development could no longer be sustained. A few examples of games that I used to adore which have died out completely with a similar data trend. Firefall Bloodline Champions Magicka: Wizard Wars So, Archaed, I propose a challenge. Can you make the case that the game is stable? Not that the game is growing - that's an unreasonable ask. I want you to convince me that the game is stable and that it's not in decline. If I come back in 2 years, will there still be people playing Wurm Online for me to play with? Will the servers still be online?
  8. Have you considered trying to articulate some of the discussions that are being had on the development team? Maybe try and relay what the conversations are about, what issues are being brought up, and potential solutions for those issues? This opens up a line of communication with the players so you get initial responses on how certain changes could affect the system before too much work is put into it. I don't know how to phrase this without being rude... but isn't that basically the point of a community manager? To be a conduit between the development team and the players? If you're unable to relay anything that's being discussed, then CodeClub at large should reconsider what they're willing to share. Because right now, saying that "something is being done but I cannot tell you what" is doing so much damage to the reputation of the company and your position within the community. Players have invested lots of time into this game and keeping them in the dark about what the development team is intending to change is making them pessimistic and aggressive.
  9. The math and logic here is faulty. Assuming the situation of 11 CR vs 11 CR, with 90 nimbleness you're going from 75% hit chance to 80.64% hit chance. This isn't a 5% damage increase. It's 80.64 / 75.0 = 7.5% damage increase. Not to mention that multipliers in combat such as flanking bonus and similar will increase the differential even more. Rift creatures have more CR than players by a decent bit. Lets say you're fighting 11 CR vs 25 CR. With 90 nimbleness, you go from 51.7% hit chance to 58.9% hit chance. 58.9 / 51.7 = 1.139, or a 13.9% damage increase. This, being Nimbleness 90 (for sake of easy rounding to nearest whole CR), outperforms WoA 100 on a weapon. Combine that with additional modifiers via flanking bonus to close the gap between you and the target even more, and you'll notice that Nimbleness results in a significantly better damage output over WoA. In short, WoA is good if the target is weak. Nimbleness is better if the target is strong. Any weapon that is meant to do rifts, uniques, or difficult creatures of any kind (trolls even) should be using Nimbleness over Wind of Ages.
  10. Short answer: Nimbleness Long answer: Wind of Ages is only better at a certain level of skill and gear, and also requires you to be fighting optimally (flanking bonus and more). If you'd like to figure out the specifics and do the math yourself, the resources you're looking for are Wurm Data (Weapons sheet) and Wurm Combat Explained. Between the two, you can run the numbers yourself using your own stats and situation. If you're not looking to get into the details and optimize for the 1% increases, then just go Nimbleness. It will almost always outperform Wind of Ages against Rift creatures.
  11. I'm curious what next month's subscriber numbers will be reported as, when there's no update and all the 1-year deals from premium purchase on steam launch expire. I know of at least a half dozen people who bought the 1 year premium time when Wurm first launched on Steam, and none of them are currently playing.
  12. It's not impolite, and you make good points. Do you feel that attempting any version of a half merge is out of the question? Or does a merge between the clusters need to be all or nothing? If it has to be all or nothing, why?
  13. Out of curiosity, I'd like to know what people think about a "half" merge, where you can transfer "max" skill between clusters. This would give the [3x] bonus to anything you grinded up to before without fully giving you all your skills on transfer. For example, if you had 70 blacksmithing on NFI and transferred to SFI, you'd get the [3x] bonus up until you reached 70 blacksmithing on SFI again. If you then grinded it to 90 on SFI, you'd be able to go back to NFI where you had 70 and get the [3x] bonus up until 90. Most arguments against the merge are from NFI players who do not want players who have abused windows of opportunity or grinded skills for years to come and decimate the newer economy of NFI. With a half merge, players would simply gain an accelerated "catch up" mechanic instead. Most arguments for the merge simply want to see the playerbase unified. While this might not fully succeed in getting everyone on the same page, it's a step in the right direction and at least gives the option to transfer to the other server while retaining some of what they've accomplished so far. For clarity, this is referring to only the skills transferring, not items. Maybe they should remain separate, maybe they should have some exceptions. I'm not sure that it's the optimal solution. However, merges don't have to be a binary solution where it's all or nothing. It might be time to consider a compromise that is acceptable to both sides of the argument.
  14. There was definitely a need to make Defiance. It creates what is effectively a PvP training ground for newer accounts. The ruleset making it a lower ceiling allows most anyone to participate. The problem here is that skilled accounts cannot transfer from Defiance -> Chaos. If the newer accounts made from the Steam release could transfer to Chaos, you might actually get some really active PvP on Chaos as a result.