Sindusk

Members
  • Content Count

    593
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    21

Sindusk last won the day on May 2

Sindusk had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1420 Rare

About Sindusk

  • Rank
    Villager

Recent Profile Visitors

6410 profile views
  1. The biggest problem with Wurm combat (in PvE, at least) is that there's really no way to interact with the opponent. You walk up, target the creature, then stand there waiting for dicerolls to determine the outcome of the combat. The creature you're fighting wont be doing anything that will modify the outcome of the combat, nor can you make any action to swing it in your favor. The key, however, is to keep it "viable" to simply allow the fight to play out as it usually does, while giving the player tools to actually benefit their combat. Some people actually prefer the laid back combat style that currently exists. Turning too far into a MMORPG style combat system would be detrimental to some players. So the real answer is to simply add more options. Double down on special moves and make them actually impact NPC's in a way that matters. You can drain an NPC's stamina, food, and water... but none of that is really apparent in combat. You don't really know how, or even if, it's to your benefit. There's also no indication, through text or UI, when the target is out of food/water/stamina. All this combined creates a very low impact special move system. With more information, new tactics could arise which enable players to create interesting stories from combat. Imagine a scenario where a player who is incapable of taking a troll head on wants to fight it. They engage the fight, then use special moves to drain the troll of all their food. They run to safety and begin healing. The troll is now hungry, so it begins hunting. It tracks down a nearby brown bear and begins to fight it, with the intent of killing the bear and eating it to replenish it's food. Note that this is a mechanic that already exists in the game. The player then assists the bear in killing the troll. The troll is slain, and the bear is now wounded from the troll. The player is then able to finish off the bear and has resulted in slaying a troll and brown bear without being capable of fighting either one in head on combat. While I think everyone agrees that combat should be more visually appealing, the combat system is severely dated mechanically. I agree with most of the other comments here. The combat will be a major turn off for players approaching the game through Steam. It needs a facelift, but also a mechanical overhaul.
  2. If you're on a boat you cannot cast on another player directly to cure them. However, you're able to open up their character UI and target each wound with the cure spell instead. Ergo: a loophole. Imagine a new group of players comes to the PvP server and sees players using Cure Light on a boat during combat. Then they try it themselves (targeting the player 3D model) and get an error. If casting Cure spells is not a problem, why not let them cast on the player directly? Why force them into the UI? This change is a sloppy and punishes players in the future who never read the patch notes from April. Why is Venom ignoring glance rates so frowned upon? If you're giving the middle finger to everyone who owns a Venom weapon, you might as well try to articulate why instead of just saying "we made up our minds." Especially since this does not simply affect PvP servers - it affects players on Freedom as well.
  3. This doesn't answer the question as to why the change doesn't apply to enchants. It just makes the distinction between enchants and a spells. The question is why does there need to be a difference in the two healing methods? Is it really just because it's not limited to priests, and the nerf was targeted specifically at priests? I struggle to understand what makes enchants exempt from the change. It has the negative of making the system harder to understand than it already is. It creates an inconsistency where it's better to be healed via life transfer than by spells. Not a very compelling argument. If the goal is to make it so cure light/medium/heavy cannot be cast on vehicles, then simply add a check to the precondition method that ensures the player is not on a vehicle. If they are, decline the spell and give them a message saying "you cannot use this spell from a vehicle." It would achieve the same goal but be way more clear to the player. Instead, you've left a loophole in the game where players can use janky UI interactions to accomplish the exact thing you wanted to remove. You didn't solve the problem at all with this change. You just made it less interactive. Sure, I understand that's the goal. But how does the changes made to Tangleweave help here? People will be spamming spells more frequently now that less counterspell is available. There's so many better options available: Add spells to Fo or Vynora that give players a shield against incoming magic damage for a certain duration. This would require the opponent to dispel the shield then cast direct damage. Give shield bash a 100% chance to interrupt spell casts. Make special moves inhibit the target's ability to spell cast for a certain duration. It just feels like the way Tangleweave was nerfed didn't make a lot of sense. It felt instead like removing Tangleweave as a spell entirely, which just opens up a load of new problems that you're setting up to deal with in the near future. No opinion. ... So... you want more RNG in combat? Like... it did less damage then Frostbrand/Flaming Aura. Significantly less damage than the other enchants against almost all armor types. The compensation was that it felt better because of the increased accuracy. Now you want to backtrack and take away that increased accuracy? I mean I guess while we're at it you might as well just nerf Truehit into non-existence as well since that increases accuracy too. Nimbleness as well I guess. It just doesn't make sense. This was another method by which people could get more accurate hits and smooth the RNG in combat. If it's a problem for PvP, then introduce a PvP-specific adjustment to it. There's no reason to punish players who invested in a Venom weapon on Freedom because PvP players are using it. This is the one change that I am adamant should be reverted. Venom should be designed specifically around not having to deal with glance. If you need to nerf the damage, fine. But removing the only thing that made it good and enjoyable to use is unacceptable. No opinion. Tangleweave can remain at a several minute cooldown if you reduce the cast time back to 3 seconds. Granted, it would help in ensuring a large number of priests do not entirely shut down spell casting for a smaller force. Favor change doesn't make much difference because gems are a thing. Make Tangleweave effective, but require intelligent usage. Finally, please pick a different way to adjust Focused Will and the Cure spells. Don't make them require sifting through a character UI screen anymore. This is just another step back on what was previously progress.
  4. Wow. > Want to make the game less spell-spam. > Nerf the counter-spell. > ??? This makes literally no sense. If the goal was to make it less spell-spam, buff/improve Tangleweave. Don't nerf it. This change exacerbates the issue you're claiming to want to solve. Now people will be able to spell spam with indifference. Any spell with a cast time below 7 seconds is now unable to be countered. The cooldown change is fine to try. It prevents overwhelming forces from shutting down the effectiveness of priests on the other side. I can get behind that. The favor cost and cast time increase is overkill nerfs. So instead of balancing around people using spells on in-game models you're instead forcing them to open up the character menu and interact with user interfaces during combat instead of targeting players. This is immediately after the new UI changes where you're allowing dragging a 3D item on the ground into a nearby container. The change was made specifically so people could focus on the 3D world and their combat log to fight instead of having to sort through janky menus and sub-menus. It's one thing if it's too strong - tackle that aspect of it. However, this instead just reverts a QoL feature and creates an inconsistency due to the new UI changes. Why can you drag an item to a container in the world, but not cast a spell on a player in the world? That just makes the game less appealing to play. This completely ignores the fact that a moving vehicle with ping/lagg introduced can easily force a character menu shut at random intervals due to client-server desync. This is a direct nerf to anyone who plays on high ping, making it significantly more difficult for them to heal their allies. There's so many things wrong with this change and it would've been better to tackle it in literally any other way. Furthermore, healing resistance being adjusted on PvP is one thing. I was actually totally fine with healing resistance increasing faster on PvP servers since it was originally designed to prevent PvE exploits. However, now you're saying that it will work inconsistently between enchants and spells? Why would that be the case? It should affect everything equally. Life Transfer shouldn't get special treatment over Scorn of Libila or Light of Fo. This is just another asterisk to put on a mechanic in the game which serves no purpose. Clearly nobody thought about how this would affect people who actually enjoyed Venom as an enchant. The whole reason for Venom/poison to have no glance rate was because it feels better and reduces RNG during combat. Even though it was less damage, making sure that nothing could glance your attacks just felt good. No longer would you swing 5 times in a row and get glanced every time. You would hit for less, but hit more often. Now, it would be one thing if there was some problem where Venom was dealing the most damage and thus overpowered. However, that wasn't the case because the other enchants applied a significant damage bonus whereas Venom had none. You traded raw damage per hit for more consistent hits. So instead of keeping Venom feeling good for those who like it you just end up returning the one combat mechanic they were trying to avoid and shove it straight back in their face without warning. Nice. Anyone with a Venom weapon they invested in is probably quite upset, and rightfully so. This change is nonsense and should be reverted outright. Even adjusting Venom to have a 20% damage bonus to counteract would not remedy this change. A unique enchant which changed how combat felt in a positive way was nerfed to obsolete, and it wasn't even the best enchant.
  5. I agree that the combat system is poorly understood. However, I believe the reason is because it's an illusion of depth when in reality those adjustments to combat do almost nothing. Whether you aim for arm or legs doesn't matter much in PvE combat. It simply presents itself like it does. PvP is slightly different. More on topic, the combat system could definitely use an update. The problem becomes that basically nobody understands the combat system intimately enough to actually begin reworking it. Understanding the code that runs combat takes an extremely long time to comprehend. After comprehension, you would then need to identify the issues you're trying to solve and plan a course of change in order to improve it. With the other projects currently at work, I doubt anyone working on the game has time to tackle a combat overhaul.
  6. I've changed the link on the OP to link to the GitHub repositories instead of the Google Drive folder. This should remove some confusion about mods not working because they are out of date (the Google Drive versions were incredibly old). Furthermore, I updated the download links for Armoury and StarterGear to their GitHub counterparts. That error indicates a problem with the properties file, specifically the path it's using to get to the DiscordRelay. If you can show your properties file (without your Discord bot token) it would help troubleshoot the issue. Ensure the first line of the properties files matches the one provided. If you're running the server on linux, I've also experienced issues with capitalization being incorrect. Ensure that the files and properties match with capitalization.
  7. Why? All this does is add another weird mechanic obscured by the game itself and make it harder to understand. If I have a 20QL item it should be a 20QL item. Not a 20QL item that acts like a 43.6QL item. That's just... why? If the point is to make the starter gear lower QL so players can upgrade them more easily with lower skills, there's much better ways to do that. Scale the math up on their use cases so lower quality items function better. This is a really sloppy change. While the follower changes make sense overall, it might be worthwhile to consider adding 10% characteristic gains across the board to all characters. With the changes made, Vynora followers get punished while everyone else gets bonuses. Instead, if you add the 10% characteristics skill bonus to everyone, then add these changes on top of what already existed, everyone ends up happy. By doing this change, you've essentially closed a "window of opportunity" that was used in order to skill accounts to where they are. Players from this point forward are forever slower to gain characteristics than those who had the Vynora bonus before. Instead of punishing people who want to play your game now and rewarding those who have been playing since the start, you should focus on trying to make it more appealing to play now than it was before. This change is an example of making the game less rewarding to play at the current time, and furthers the gap between accounts who have been playing forever and those who are just getting into Wurm now.
  8. Will the Steam version be using the premium model? Will players still be able to convert in-game silver into premium time?
  9. How to Make Everyone Happy: A Guide Step 1: Use The Gallows to explain why players are banned. So many topics involve people discussing bans. Earlier this year, The Gallows sub-forum was created to provide transparency about moderation actions taken against player accounts. In the whole year, only four threads have been posted. Are these the only bans that occurred for the entire year? Even in the topics posted, the details are extremely sparse. No evidence is provided and nothing aside from "these people were banned and here's why." I was hoping for something a bit more thorough where a statement would be made. Take control of the narrative in these situations and provide your viewpoint and tangible evidence! This would be a good step towards satisfying the players who are upset with how these bans were handled, as well as reassure those who don't care that the game is being properly moderated. It's a win-win and it baffles me why you wouldn't use the position of authority to explain why actions were taken. Step 2: Stop dodging around tough questions and just answer them flat. Additionally, learn to actually admit fault when there is some. You'll never persuade someone that your viewpoint is correct if all you're doing is dodging each point after point. It's a miserable tactic that just leads to endless fighting (which is why this thread is 5 pages long). So enough with quoting someone and pointing out minor inaccuracies. Tackle the big picture! What's after Steam? What happened to the old projects that were mentioned in previous roadmaps? Are there going to be adjustments to systems that were released and were not fully successful? Make a nice, clear statement that tackles all of the big picture problems! It's also important to know when to take a knee. I'll start for you - the priest rework was a failure. It didn't meet the markers it set out for. It turned PvP into a spellflinging contest and needed significant adjustments to PvE balance, including some spells that were simply not useful. Sure, it can be argued that many of the goals for the priest rework was met. Casting combat spells is useful again. Healing exploitation was fixed, as well as significantly shaking up the healing-centric PvP meta that existed. There's significant improvements to QoL for enchanting and similar. But all of that good comes with the bad. For PvP, it felt like non-priests were useless. For PvE, healing in rifts was significantly nerfed and made doing rifts with few players significantly harder. Jewelry enchants were annoying to create for PvP purposes. If there's one regret I have from leaving the team, it's that I wasn't able to refine the priest system after significant feedback came through. Changes of that scale aren't going to come out perfect on the first try. It saddened me greatly that most of the work I did ended up being mostly abandoned, with just a few nerfs at the combat spells and some minor bug fixes thrown at it. However, time and time again after revisiting the forums every now and then, I'm reminded why I left. All of the reasons I outlined are still an issue. Jackal was essentially designed in secret and launched without public testing. The concerns I had for Jackal came true almost completely. People who wanted a hunting server didn't find Jackal satisfying, while new players had to jump through hoops to get there. Moderation actions are still being taken without properly informing the player why. For the most part, they're not even bad moderation actions. It's just the players not knowing why - that's the issue - and that remains the case today. The common theme here is communication. Improve the communication to the players. You'll have less questions to answer, and they'll have less anxiety about the future of the game.
  10. At this point you should just consider posting a weekly rage thread. Share your name and yell at the game!
  11. Pretty much. It's staggering how new content keeps getting pushed out instead of fixing underlying problems with existing systems. You can look at the road maps and compare what happened to what was planned. What happened to the meditation rework? What's the status of the new UI? I remember something about a new cash shop... I think? There's so much content already in the game. The next step is to refine it. Imagine how a new player interacts with the game when they first enter combat, knowing nothing about how it works. Combat could be so significantly improved with it's clarity - without fundamentally breaking the existing mechanics. Meditation has been a black mark for years and remains so, despite numerous great suggestion threads for how to improve it. I agree with the move to Steam (might be hasty) but what comes after? Are we really going to designate time to getting another round of Jackal, or are we going to see improvements to the fundamental systems that affects all of the players instead of the ones who are currently participating on Jackal?
  12. Steam doesn't allow RMT and that includes EVE Online. This also includes CS:GO because all money is handled through the steam wallet. I contacted Steam a while ago specifically about this issue if Wurm were to come to steam: Steam Support Response The whole policy revolves around cash flow going into Steam and not coming out. For example, if people could sell their games in their library to other people, then Steam would lose out on a sale from the store. If you buy a skin on CS:GO, you get Steam Wallet money from the other person which cannot be extracted to real world money (unless you break terms, which does happen). You can use it to buy other games on their platform, but nowhere else - this keeps the money in the Steam ecosystem. In the case of Wurm, you can add a method to buy silver in-game, then allow people to use that silver to purchase items from other player. Cash flow goes through steam -> game/player, and cannot be reversed. This would include allowing players to purchase silver directly from other players using real money. All that aside, we can bring it back to EVE Online. Basically the policy is that they don't allow RMT. You can buy PLEX and sell it for player ISK in game. You can also use ISK to buy in-game PLEX, but it's not allowed to turn that PLEX into real world money. It's against terms to do RMT in EVE, and they can ban you for it. However, the difference is if they will ban you for it. Their enforcement of RMT rules is lax and they only do as much as they need to. I imagine that the same will apply to the Steam release of Wurm. They will have to outline that it would be against the rules to do real world trading. They wouldn't allow players to post WTS and WTB threads here on the forums. However, they probably will not enforce it with a heavy hand even when the rule is in place. So what's the best case scenario? The existing servers get connected to Steam and the terms change to support that. Forum WTB/WTS threads all get archived and a new forum is presented with new rules that align to only trading for in-game currency. The only time that the rules are enforced is if someone breaking them causes problems (such as fraud).
  13. You would need to add terms that prohibited players from making transactions with money outside of the steam wallet. You would also need to moderate those transactions. You can read more about that from this post.
  14. Switched my Shares

    Not even going to voice an opinion on what this means for the game because it doesn't matter. However, reading through the thread, an explanation of what this is could've been presented much better than it is here. The original post should've been written by Retrograde and had a PR statement about what this means moving forwards to settle the anxiety of the change. Instead, it fell to players like @Malenato give a better insight into the potential futures of where this could lead in the future. Regardless, everyone should form their own opinion as to what this means. To do so, you need an accurate picture of the events that unfold, so I'll try my best to organize the full picture and CodeClub can correct me wherever I'm wrong. Switching Shares Referencing the press release that @zethrealposted here: Rolf sold his shares in CodeClub (representing "82.9 percent of the Code Club shares") for a "total of SEK 3,370,000" ($346,250 USD at current exchange rates). It goes on to say "of which SEK 1,000,000 (~$100,000 USD) was paid in cash on entry today, SEK 500,000 (~$50,000 USD) on October 31, 2019." The final piece is "SEK 1,870,000 (~$187,000 USD) through newly issued shares in Game Chest." To break it down: CodeClub is still a company. It's now a subsidiary of Game Chest Group, since they hold the majority of shares in the company. Rolf sold these shares for roughly $100,000 USD paid in July, then another roughly $50,000 USD that will be paid on October 31, 2019. This is paid in cash (or wire transfer maybe, specifics unknown). The remaining ~$187,000 USD value was granted through new Game Chest Group shares that Rolf now holds. Rolf is now a shareholder of Game Chest Group, not CodeClub. CodeClub, now being a subsidiary of Game Chest Group, means that Rolf actually still has a vested interest in Wurm and CodeClub. Half the payout was in shares, so it's still in Rolf's best interest to see success in CodeClub and Wurm. If Wurm improves and gains additional revenue, the new share values will increase in value and Rolf essentially makes money. If Wurm does not recover and eventually needs to be shut down, CodeClub share value will be close to nothing. Game Chest Group will remain more stable since they have multiple investments. So that's everything that actually transpired. Rolf's initial statement in this thread ("The reason I did this is basically risk management. With subscriber numbers and revenues going down I was happy that another company with more muscles was ready to step in and take over business.") matches the reasoning behind the last 2 lines, so you can use that as the justification for why this occurred. Now, that's the Rolf perspective of this whole ordeal. So what does this mean for the game? New Upper Management It's too early to know what the new majority shareholders will do with the game, but from the bits and pieces laid out, there's no reason to be completely alarmed. They're clearly willing to invest into the game directly. If that's the case, then they see an opportunity to get a return on investment. How they plan to do this is unknown. However, there's some possible scenarios: They trust the existing development team to do make good decisions and bring life back into the game. They're willing to fund whatever is necessary in order to make that work. If this approach succeeds, the game will have significant improvements in a rapid timeframe, players will return/new players will begin playing, and profits will increase. If this approach fails, the company may see this is a poor investment and will take an action to try and turn it around. They may attempt to milk the rest of the remaining resources they can out of the company before shutting down. This would be the end of the game entirely. If this occurs, the best case scenario for the community would be that they attempt to sell off the assets of the game to another company after shutting down. They may attempt to restructure the staff of the game in an attempt to make radical turn-around. They want to instate a new way of doing things and make radical changes. This would often involve laying off existing staff and instating new developers or completely restructuring the team. Existing signs point to this not being their approach. Rolf and the development team would not be able to prevent this anymore. If Game Chest Group makes the decision to remove existing staff they would be able to do so. Previously staff were accountable up to Rolf. With Game Chest now being the parent company of Code Club, staff are now accountable up to Game Chest Group. Rolf no longer has final say in the positions that staff members have. If Game Chest decides that someone should be removed from GM or development team, they have all the power to do so. As it stands, there is no "face" of Game Chest Group appearing. Most of the discussion seems to be internal, with Game Chest Group not providing a representative for their interests to the players. Rolf has stated they are hands off, so it shouldn't be expected that a Game Chest Group representative will be participating in the forums or providing any feedback or insight from their perspective. For all intents and purposes, Rolf may as well be the representative of Game Chest Group since he is now a shareholder. The only thing we have to work off are the two statements from the CEO and chairman: If you want to spin conspiracy theories I guess you could take "launching Wurm on additional fronts" as a potential plan for console release. However, we can only wait and see what happens. I'd provide an opinion but I'd rather just leave this as an informative post instead of an opinion piece.
  15. It's on the right track but not fully accurate. All of this is correct. The range of power is exactly -100 to 100. Otherwise, this is all correct. Mostly correct. There's a 1% chance to shatter an item. It is modified by shatter resistance (rune for example) so having 10% shatter resistance rune brings the chance down to 0.9% chance to shatter on every cast. This is an outdated statement in a way since metallic liquid does in fact guarantee the item will not shatter. Additional Information: What this is also misinterpreting is 101 and higher casts. All casts of 101 and higher are done on items that have a lower power enchant on the item. For each 20 power you improve the cast on an item, you gain an additional power. For example, if you're casting Circle of Cunning and land a 20 power cast, it will have a power of 20 on the resulting enchant. If you then cast a 60 power Circle of Cunning, you get a "bonus" 2 power from the improvement process, resulting in a Circle of Cunning 62. 104 casts previously were the result of casting a ~100 on an item with ~0-19 power already on it. In theory a 104.99 could be cast, but it would always be rounded down to 104 in display since it always removes the decimal points. However, as of the addition of the priest journal reward, cast power can go to 105 naturally. With that in place, you can now obtain an item with a power slightly over 110 (and it will display as 110) by casting a 105 power cast on an item which already has a 1-4 power cast on it.