Sindusk

Members
  • Content count

    530
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    18

Sindusk last won the day on January 27

Sindusk had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1123 Rare

About Sindusk

  • Rank
    Villager

Recent Profile Visitors

4712 profile views
  1. Revenant - Modded PvE/PvP (3x Action, New Skillgain)

    1.9 Update Bug Fixes Fixed a bug causing horses and some vehicles to not be able to be embarked. Fixed a bug causing Expand to not be able to be cast. Updated Taxidermy to resolve an issue with animated corpses not being able to be selected. Fixed a bug causing Enchant Orbs not to work properly. Fixed a bug where Essence Drain wounds were not being applied in DUSKombat. The damage dealt from these wounds will not be calculated for loot assistance. This will be fixed at a later time. PvP Damage Multiplier in DUSKombat has been reduced by 30% on Revenant Arena. This does not solve all issues with the patch but hits most of the extreme problems. More fixes will come shortly.
  2. Sindusk Server Mods

    Better Combat Log has been outdated for a long time and is no longer being updated. It's safe to remove from any server. It was abandoned after the Wurm Online development team added multicolor combat logging.
  3. Sindusk Server Mods

    Spellcraft v4.1 (Download) Removed option showCreatureSpellEffects. This was implemented in the Priest Rework and no longer necessary. The option improvedEnchantGrouping now simply enables the changes to the enchant groups from the configuration. The Priest Rework updated all spell effect descriptions and the full functionality is no longer necessary. For compatibility reasons, I'm keeping the name of the setting the same, but it now only enables the custom enchant groups. Updated the system used to determine negating enchants to hook into the new vanilla system instead of overwriting it. Updated the onlyShowValidSpells system with the new vanilla jewelry enchants. It should also function better in regards to the custom jewelry enchants. With the new functionality from the Priest Rework identifying which items a spell can be cast on, I'll be further expanding on this in the future and make it even more accurate across all spells. Updated default configurations with proper spell groups using the new spells from the priest update. As a side note, due to my Patreon hitting it's latest stretch goal, WyvernMods will become configurable. I'll be working on this over the next few weeks, so keep an eye out for when that becomes available.
  4. Revenant - Modded PvE/PvP (3x Action, New Skillgain)

    Revenant has been updated to Wurm Unlimited 1.9 Full details of the Wurm Unlimited update can be found here: https://forum.wurmonline.com/index.php?/topic/169510-patch-notes-1915/ Updated the following mods from other authors to be compatible with the latest version: Spellmod (Ago) Betterdig (Bdew) HotSFixes (Bdew) Archeotweaks (Bdew) Second Player Demigod: Reevi Congratulations to Reevi on collecting the 50 key fragments required to obtain a Key of the Heavens and ascend to demigod. On Revenant, when a player uses a Key of the Heavens, they trigger a global GL-Freedom event, which allows them to modify their resulting deity. Here's Reevi's responses: [02:03:02] <Fo> I offer the following: Life Transfer, Oakshell, Light of Fo, Charm [02:03:05] <Fo> Choose, Reevi: Which power do you select? [02:03:11] <Reevi> Light of Fo [02:03:35] <Fo> I hear you, Reevi, and grant you the power of Light of Fo. [02:03:52] <Magranon> I offer the following: Flaming Aura, Frantic Charge, Efficiency, Dominate, Strongwall [02:03:55] <Magranon> Choose, Reevi: Which power do you wish to wield? [02:04:15] <Magranon> Are you still there? Reevi, you must choose. [02:04:18] <Reevi> Flaming Aura [02:04:25] <Magranon> I hear you, Reevi, and grant you the power of Flaming Aura. [02:04:42] <Vynora> I offer the following: Wind of Ages, Circle of Cunning, Aura of Shared Pain, Excel, Opulence [02:04:45] <Vynora> Choose, Reevi: Which enchant power suits your needs? [02:04:50] <Reevi> Circle of Cunning [02:05:15] <Vynora> I hear you, Reevi, and grant you the power of Circle of Cunning. [02:05:32] <Libila> I offer the following: Web Armour, Truehit, Rebirth, Drain Health, Drain Stamina [02:05:35] <Libila> Choose, Reevi: What shall be your strongest power? [02:06:05] <Reevi> Truehit [02:06:05] <Libila> I hear you, Reevi, and grant you the power of Truehit. [02:06:15] <Unknown Entity> Upon ascension, you will receive Light of Fo, Flaming Aura, Circle of Cunning, and Truehit These spells were then added to the god, alongside randomly rolled other spells. Some of the randomly rolled random spells were removed in order to keep balance. The resulting spell list is available below, alongside the full log of GL-Freedom when the event was occurring. Thelastdab Spell Adjustments Due to changes in how demigods obtain their spell list and passives, Thelastdab's spell list has been modified. The new spell list and passives for Thelastdab are available below. Additional Changes Significant code changes were made across most of the larger mods (Spellcraft, DUSKombat, and WyvernMods) to get them compatible with 1.9 changes. I failed to keep a proper list of changes that I made during this process. None of my changes should have significant gameplay impact. They were focused around compatibility and ensuring that systems would work properly after the update. As a final note, some mechanics may break down due to the large amount of changes the occurred. If you find anything wrong, please report it via ticket or directly to me over Discord and I'll do my best to get it fixed in a timely manner. GL-Freedom Chat Log from Reevi's Ascension
  5. Sindusk Server Mods

    Thanks for the report. This is a conflict between the Bag of Holding spell and Spellcraft. Because Expand functions identically, they try to do exactly the same thing. You can either disable the Expand spell entirely through the Spellcraft configuration or remove the Bag of Holding mod.
  6. This, but marketed as an expansion. Full title upgrade: Wurm Online: Some Expansion. Focus the new area on community gathering and overcoming challenges as a group. Offer incentive to F2P players while they're there. Make it rewarding for existing players to join, whether they're just getting started or seasoned veterans.
  7. Sindusk Server Mods

    Updated the mods that required it to Wurm Unlimited 1.9. DUSKombat v2.0 (Download) Updated to Wurm Unlimited 1.9. Various effects from the 1.9 update have been enacted in DUSKombat: Life Transfer now operates on healing spell resistance and heals the highest damage wound. Web Armour now operates on the same principles as described in the priest rework. Wind of Ages and Blessings of the Dark now affect swing speed in the same way as the priest rework. Frantic Charge now affects swing speed in the same way as the priest rework. Server Tweaks v2.0 (Download) Updated to Wurm Unlimited 1.9. Removed the option removeInfidelError and the bugfix itself. It is no longer necessary as of the priest rework. Spellcraft v4.0 (Download) Updated to Wurm Unlimited 1.9. Removed spell Summon Soul - Spell was added as part of the Priest Rework. Disabled the option reduceScornHealingDone. It was no longer functioning and probably not necessary due to the priest rework changes. Disabled the option healingRedone. All of it's functionality was done in the priest rework and I'll be adding options to edit how the default system works in the future. Disabled the option increaseFranticChargeDuration. This was done in the priest rework and is no longer necessary. Treasure Hunting v2.0 (Download) Updated to Wurm Unlimited 1.9. Extra Notes All of these were updated to the point where they will allow the server to load. There may still be issues. If you find anything wrong with any of my mods, please let me know and I'll fix it. Spellcraft has some really strange bugs right now with the Priest Rework changes. I'll be putting out another update to fix the issues it has in the near future. The existing version will at least enable it to run on a server to edit spells/configurations/etc.
  8. Is it legal?

    This is the one Wurm problem with no real solution. Since most of the actions in Wurm are repetitive, the difference between a macro/bot and a human being blurs a lot. For example, most modern keyboards will allow you to edit the repeat "interval" when you hold down a key. If you set it to 1 minute and put a rock on your key, is that a macro? How would anything detect that is what's happening and not a person pressing the key every minute?
  9. Devblog: Movement & Desync

    So like this?
  10. In Memoriam - Seleas(Edward) - 02/18/2019

    Seleas frequented my sever on Wurm Unlimited. He was always helpful to new players, answering questions in global chat and being a positive influence in the community. I remember him for his witty comments, especially this comical exchange. I'll miss his banter. Rest in peace, Seleas [Crazy Cat Lord].
  11. Epic, Complete 180°

    It would involve ensuring that every player had a specific client mod installed, or some form of patcher/launcher that would be used to launch the game instead of Steam. While a mild hassle for the players, it would be an effective anti-cheat solution.
  12. Poll to gauge Player perception of the GM team

    Kind of wish I could select 3 different options. In regards to the everyday cases, such as items or players being stuck and getting them out, I'd select the first option: Good confidence in GM's. These cases are generally handled really well and pleasantly. The systems in place to support helping players in these situations are rather good and the staff executes their duty in that regard very well. Then you get to the sticky situations: player disputes. These cases are not pure white like the ones listed above, and generally involve two or more players interacting with each other where one side will always lose out, regardless of intervention or not. Since uniques are a hot topic, an example: Player A hosts a dragon slaying. The dragon is off deed. Player B does not participate in the slaying at all, but knows it's happening. Once the unique is slain, player B takes the corpse from the ground. They proceed to butcher the corpse then sell the bone to Player C and the tome to Player D. What happens? Obviously Player B is being a ######. But is that enough to warrant a punishment? Or does it come down to "deed it or lose it?" If they are punished, does Player C need to return the bone and Player D need to return the tome? What if they were already used? Are new items spawned in? Or do the items just stay as-is, Player B gets banned, and Player A gets nothing out of organizing the slaying? There's a significant amount of gray area in these situations. In regards to the outcomes of these situations, I'd select the second option in the poll: They're doing a good job but there's room for improvement. Obviously, decisions are subject of opinion and everyone is entitled to disagree with the outcomes. From my own experience, the actual outcomes of these disputes are generally reasonable. However, there's an aspect of these situations where I would select the fourth option: I have little faith. That aspect is how these situations are communicated and the accountability of the outcomes to previous cases. When disputes are handled, the communication to the people involved is generally atrocious. Sticking to the example above, assume that Player B would result with a permanent ban. They'd try to log in the next day only to see the message that they're banned. If they felt their actions were not against the rules, there's no indication as to why they were banned. What if they were a new player that just recently started playing and didn't understand what a public slaying was? Can they argue against the ban? Shouldn't "deed it or lose it" apply? Not only is there no official way to appeal a case (aside from E-Mailing an address, which to my knowledge is not in any official statement), but the responses received far too often don't actually represent an explanation of why the player was punished. There's far too many cases that exist where the situation is nearly identical, yet the rulings have gone different ways. That should never happen. Players are currently banned permanently from playing where players who have broken the same rule are still playing. If a case was ruled in the past, it should stand as a precedent or a public statement of change of policy should be made to void that case from being used as a comparison. Finally, I take significant issue with how it's impossible to tell how the Game Masters will act until after the fact. For example, answer how a GM will respond to the following hypothetical situations without reading a staff response on how it would play out: Hypothetical One: Player A sets his cart to "all kingdom members" can command and logs off. Player B comes and takes the cart, then parks it inside a locked house where only he has access. Player A comes back online and tracks the cart back to the locked area. Player A cannot retrieve their vehicle, but removes the permissions to command the cart. Player B logs back in and notices he can no longer use the cart, but it's in a bad position with hitched animals so he cannot move it. Player A puts in a support ticket to get his cart back. Player B puts in a ticket to get the cart moved to a different location in the locked area because he cannot move it. Questions: Does the cart get returned to Player A? Is the cart rightfully claimed by Player B through game mechanics? Would no action be taken and both players be dissatisfied? Hypothetical Two: Player A plays the game for a long time, and obtains a set of dragon scale armour. They place it in a wagon on their deed that only they have access to. They become inactive for a long time, and their deed disbands. When they log back in, Player B has claimed the area and built a fence around their border, completely cutting off access to the wagon that Player A had. Their intention with the deed was to make sure they would obtain the items in the wagon once it decayed. The wagon is close to decaying, which would drop its contents. Player A puts in a support ticket to get his wagon back. Questions: Is the wagon moved outside of Player B's deed back to Player A? Does Player A lose his dragon scale that is still retained in an object only he has access to? Hypothetical Three: Player A joins deed of Player B. Player A places a house and locks it. Over time, he stores all his items in the house. After some time, a dispute erupts which causes Player B to kick Player A out of the deed and put them on KoS. Player B then builds a fence around Player A's house to prevent him from accessing any of their items. Player A puts in a ticket to get their items back. Player B puts in a support ticket to remove the house he doesn't have access to on his deed. Questions: Is Player A allowed to get their items back? Is the house now a black mark until it decays on Player B's deed? Hypothetical Four: Player A wants to create a new deed. In order to do so, they cannot be the mayor of their existing one. Instead of using an alt, they instead hand their deed to Player B for safekeeping until they can get their second deed built and an alt transported to hold the writ. Player B gets permanently banned. Player A puts in a support ticket to get their deed contract back from the banned player. Questions: Should items from a banned player be given to other players ever under any circumstance? If so, what circumstances? To experienced players, many of the questions above could be answered. However, to someone who isn't as familiar with previous outcomes and standard operating of the Game Masters, how is anyone supposed to know what is and is not accepted? Every situation above is just gambling in actions which game mechanics allow. Even after reading the rules, it does not account for some of the gray area situations above. Wurm is an incredibly deep and complex game that has many different scenarios which can occur. It's unreasonable to expect every scenario to be accounted for. However, there doesn't even seem to be any standard procedure available to the public to reference before acting in many situations. This leads to a situation where every action you take and every word you say is subject to interpretation from a council of GM's that determine if you're at fault. Trust in their operation currently resides on a rough list of rules and blind faith.
  13. Open Reply to Abuse of Power Public Letter

    I apologize for getting that wrong. I don't know the exact progression taken through staff. Obviously, I was given poor information and it's my fault for assuming it factual. Sorry. I do however stand by the point of what I mentioned, which is to make a more public statement and introduction. If you mean to be a relay between the community and the staff, it would be wise to give yourself a bit of a background. Also, I doubly apologize if any of my post came off as an attack towards you. My primary point of issue is the policies in place which cause these events and drama, not the events themselves or the people associated with it.
  14. This is an open reply to the Abuse of Power claims public letter, specifically directed at Enki. To preface and clarify, I’m not the one who made all of the claims that were mentioned, nor do I pretend to represent the players or staff who did so. This is more of an opinion piece from myself with mild additional information granted by the players and staff who did report these claims. Enki, The public letter you made is an exceptional step forward. This statement here is something so critical, yet was obscured information that was difficult to find: Designating a clear chain of command is important, and letting the players know who to contact if they have concerns about a staff member helps immensely. Previously, when players had witnessed something questionable, they had no idea who to turn to. This statement clarifies that perfectly, so thank you. I do have one question, though, mostly brought out of my own knowledge. What prevents a staff member from deleting relevant logs and information in regards to activities? There is at least one person not mentioned here who would have the ability to do so. I’m not making an accusation, I’m just asking for clarification about the safeguards in place to prevent “evidence tampering” so to speak. Would you be willing to further clarify the “chain of access” beyond the chain of command? Who has access to what, and what can they do with it? I’d understand if not, but I felt it’s a question worth asking. Now onto the actual events themselves: A classic player dispute where neither party was fully at fault. Player A gets impacted by forces beyond their control, and loses items to Player B because of it, without being subjected to proper in-game mechanics. There’s already a precedent set by previous GM actions that these types of situations are to have the “corpse” of the incident returned to Player A. In this case, the actions taken were warranted, and clarifying that it was done by the GM team instead of by a friend of Player A makes it much better. Thanks for the transparency. This one is an issue. While the accusation was that normal procedure was skirted in order to obtain the item, the fact that the item was obtained at all is an issue. There are restrictions on the items that are to be given out to staff on events like Christmas. One such restriction is the ability to craft the item. This restriction was not adhered to in this case. Other staff members are rightfully upset that one person requested an item that was essentially “restricted” from being given out as a gift, and then was granted that item. For reference, there are only a handful of summer hats currently in the game. These items have a very significant value because of this limited supply. While never officially declared, it was assumed that no more would ever be produced, granting them value. Players have spent hundreds of euros on this specific item, under the assumption that it was one of a very limited supply. By introducing a new supply (even just one), you have essentially diminished the value of all of these players investments. I recall a discussion when armour changes were being considered, and the topic of summer hats being nerfed because they were no-drop came up. The consensus were that they were rare enough, and expensive enough, to not warrant additional changes to balance them. Furthermore, it was important not to devalue items that players had invested in. This line of thinking applies to all facets of the game. If scale was suddenly the worst armour, players who had invested in owning scale would be incredibly dissatisfied. The actions taken to introduce a new Summer Hat goes directly against these philosophies, and have devalued the investment of players into the other summer hats that exist in Wurm Online. It also creates new questions: Will more summer hats become available over time? Are other items that were deemed “limited” going to become more common as well? What prevents a staff member from requesting a Bag of Keeping and getting it approved? The important question to answer: What policies are in place for what items can and cannot be created? What type of reference point do you use to approve or deny requests for items? Is it simply off your own judgement, or is there a process of checks for what type of impact the creation would have before it’s creation? While essentially just a lighter version of the summer hat situation, many of the same concepts apply. While the act was with good intention and does not signify any abuse of power, the optics of the situation create concern for other players. This event leans much more towards favoritism than abuse of power. What prevents the ability to give a supreme pickaxe to someone “in an event?” When someone spends their time creating a supreme pickaxe legitimately, that act is devalued through events like this where an identical creation is made at the flick of a wand. Along this line of thinking, I’d like to make a suggestion. Some of the most tempting rewards are items which cannot be obtained yet have no additional function over their natural counterparts. A great example of this is renamed items. They are identical to their normal counterparts, but have an additional flair added for the purposes of the event. You can take the reciprocal approach by adding rarity to items that are naturally unable to be rare, such as a magic chest, yet serve no additional purpose by being rare. The ability to obtain a shiny magic chest would be exceptionally tempting to players. Obviously, magic chests are on the more expensive side of examples, but hopefully the point is conveyed. The creation of items by GM accounts is always going to be something that’s difficult to defend. I recognize that the best efforts are being put forward to keep things fair. However, putting policies in place in regards to their creation will be far more effective than defending the action on every single instance. Also, making those policies public. When a player breaks a rule, you point to the rule and tell them they broke it. When a GM creates an item, you should have a policy and be able to point at the policy and say it doesn’t break any of those limitations. Whenever a play account gets used in something that has the possibility of being impacted by GM account information, the accusation will always rise. As an unlimited server host, I know these accusations all too well. I also know that there is generally sufficient evidence behind the scenes to know if a malicious action was taken. Checking these actions like you have and releasing that information to the public builds trust that GM accounts are being held accountable for their actions. Thank you. This one is a bit tricky. On one hand, everything stated here is accurate. I know that only you have the authority to place a member on the GM team, being the Head GM. This is a fact. However, it gets into a light conversation about bias and how relationships between people can increase their standing. Did you feel pressured at all into making the decision? Were any of the others who recommended the promotion influenced by other actions? What were the key points which lead you to the decision you made? Of course, all of that is hypothetical and nobody knows what actually happened. What did happen, though, and is plain to see, is yet another lack of communication between the staff team and the community in regards to the operation of the staff. Let’s paint a picture here. Assistant community relations officer applies to become a GM. The application goes through, and is approved. The assistant community relations officer is made to be a GM. The community is not informed by either the GM staff or community relations that this happened. Where’s the announcement that the person was made to be a GM? Why is this all being done hush-hush? If this person is going to be ruling over incidents in the game, shouldn’t the community at least be aware of what’s going on? I’m not saying you need to announce every GM, but surely you can see how weird it is that the community relations assistant being promoted to GM has nothing but silence? Imagine how the optics would look if you announced it in public: “Due to X contributions to the community and their ability to Y and Z, we are happy to announce X as our newest addition to the GM team!” You explain why they were promoted, you inform the community as to what’s going on, and you now have a platform of public approval and appreciation instead of gossip. Sorry… starting to rant a bit - I think we both know my stance on that topic. I’ll try to get back on topic. In conclusion, I believe you (Enki) have been doing a great job at increasing the transparency of the team recently. The addition of the gallows is something that I had been pleading for since the ban of Propheteer last year. Posting a public investigation into one of your own staff is a risky move, and I commend you for it. It helps show that the staff is being held accountable, and improves the faith the community has in the actions of the team. Of course, I do not agree with every decision made, but I believe you’ve done the best with the hand you were dealt. I hope to see this trend continue moving forward, and the trust in the staff from the Wurm Online community be rebuilt. Thanks for taking the time to write the post you made. Sindusk
  15. Sindusk Server Mods

    New updates to most of my mods. It's recommended to have the latest SinduskLibrary even if you don't use Armoury, though not required. Sindusk Library v2.2 (Download) Update to support new armour class design, allowing Armoury to reference armours properly. Addition of the EnumBuster supporting class, which is used by WyvernMods to create custom titles. Armoury v4.0 (Download) Requires SinduskLibrary v2.0 or higher. Repair armour modification code. This re-enables the use of the following properties: armourDamageReduction-## - change the base DR values for an armour. armourEffectiveness-## - Change the armour effectiveness value against a specific wound type or set of wound types. armourGlanceRate-## - Change the glance rate of armour against a specific wound type or set of wound types. DiscordRelay v3.0 (Download) Added support for relay between CA HELP and #ca-help. Added support for relay between MGMT and #mgmt. Both of these features can be enabled or disabled in the configuration. Server Tweaks v1.6 (Download) Added feature that allows an adjustment to the power of the epic curve. Fix an issue where uncap GM enchant maximum power was set to 999, causing GM's to be unable to properly set the power of Bloodthirst. The new maximum is 99,999. Spellcraft v3.3 (Download) Items with QL 99.995 or higher are now considered to be 100QL for the purposes of damage modifier calculations. Fixed a bug where placing an item on top of a container would prevent Replenish from functioning. (Thanks Xype) Fixed a bug where casting Heal on a zombie would cause the server to crash. (Thanks Carl for crashing the server by casting on a zombie chicken) TreasureHunting v1.3 (Download) Added a feature where the quality of the lock on a chest would be significantly reduced if all ambushing creatures are slain. Fixed an issue where maps would not drop from hunting due to an invalid code hook. On a more personal note, I'd like to share something else. Over the past several years that I've been modding Wurm Unlimited (and for a short time, working on Wurm Online), I've done so completely out of passion for the game. Ever since I started playing the game in 2015, it's really captured me in a way that very few other games have. I believe I'm not the only one to share this feeling. There's other server hosts and modders which show similar passion in their projects to the benefit of everyone else. Sometimes I forget how much I take for granted, such as BSB's being sorted or horses going up more than 40 slope. However, I'm now in a financial situation where I could use your help. For this reason, I've set up a Patreon page. With your support, I'll increase my efforts to give back to the community in meaningful ways. My stretch goals include making WyvernMods fully configurable and increasing my efforts towards a valid anti-cheat solution. Beyond that, I'd be making additional mods with the input of patrons. Hope everyone likes these new updates. It's taken some time to get back into the swing of things, but I've got some big plans for after the next WU update!