• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Sindusk

  1. I would really like to see something similar to the bulk sorted mod from Wurm Unlimited, but it's implementation should not be so... choppy. The idea of shelves that accept certain QL is along the right track, but I'd like to see something truly inventive that makes sense and doesn't require player configuration to achieve the proper result. Also, shelves would make the interface harder to manage. Any ideas for ways to make this happen without just sorting by groups of 10QL and 1QL past 90?
  2. The <5kg means they'll take full damage from their weight, not that they're immune to Sunder. It's specific to that change line, not Sunder as a whole.
  3. Sunder now works on large objects like forges, ovens, and guard towers. Before these changes, it would do the full 1-20 damage on those items. Guard towers would be able to be brought down in ~10 casts from decent skilled priests, making it take mere minutes to remove a tower. These changes are intended to make it so that Sunder is balanced against the new objects you can use it on.
  4. You shouldn't need to have Wurm Assistant to notice someone is casting something hostile on you.
  5. New changes should be live on Oracle and Baph test servers shortly: New Spell: Purge (All gods & demigods, 45 faith, 35 favor) Purge removes all beneficial spell effects from the target creature. The spell effect removal completely ignores dispel resistance and does not have a resistance of its own. Purge has a 5 minute cooldown after a successful cast. Cast time is 15 seconds and range is roughly 6 tiles. This spell is designed to be a countermeasure for using half a dozen effects to "mask" the effects that actually matter and prevent them from being dispelled. Bloodthirst now has a chance to inflict an infection wound on the target. Chance to inflict an infection wound is the power of the bloodthirst / 100,000. This grants a 10% chance per swing at 10k Bloodthirst. When an infection attack is rolled, it will ignore the target's glance rate, similar to how Venom currently works. Infection wounds now tick every minute, and will rapidly worsen. Bandaging or treating an infection wound will stop the worsening effect, but they will still tick every minute. Web Armour now adjusts attack speed as a multiplier instead of a flat amount. Every 10 power of Web Armour adds 1 second to the duration of the effect. This is unchanged from previous mechanics. The effect no longer slows each attack swing by 0.5 seconds per power. Instead, it now slows the attack speed by a percentage equivalent to the power. For example, at 50 power, web armour will slow swings by 50%. If the attacking weapon swings every 3 seconds, it would instead swing every 4.5 seconds under the effects of Web Armour. This interaction works off the base attack speed of the weapon, not the actual. A glimmersteel small maul has a base attack speed of 2.7 seconds (3 seconds with a 10% reduction for being glimmersteel). The actual swing speed of the glimmersteel small maul is 3 seconds, since you cannot swing faster than once per 3 seconds. The glimmersteel maul would swing every 5.4 seconds under the effect of 100 Web Armour. By this logic, you can ignore web armour completely by using fists and bearpaws, since fists have a base swing speed of 1 second. Other interactions similar to this (like Frantic Charge) will also apply. Sunder damage has been reworked. Sunder now accounts for the targets QL, damage, and weight when calculating the damage done. Base damage remains the same, at 0-20 damage based on cast power. Quality now reduces the damage of the sunder cast, starting at 0.5% reduction at 1QL to 50% reduction at 100QL, scaling linearly. 80QL items will take 40% reduced damage. Damage already on the item also reduces the damage of the sunder cast, starting at 0% reduction at 0 DAM and scaling to 100% reduction at 100 DAM. 50 DAM items will take half as much sunder damage. High weight objects (guard towers, forges, etc.) will take significantly reduced damage now. Any item under 5kg will be unaffected by this change. All items over 5kg will start taking significantly reduced damage, scaling indefinitely. Light of Fo, Scorn of Libila, Life Transfer, and Essence Drain now use intelligent wound targeting. They will prioritize healing the highest damage wound(s) they can. Nahjo now has the meat & alchemy affinity. Enchants when examining an item now have color! Check the image below for an example. Colors are able to be modified individually on a per-player basis through the text section of the client settings. You can revert it back to boring by configuring all colors to white.
  6. Good question. We're looking to make it so the higher of the two faiths will be applied to the character on login. For example, someone who has 50 Libila faith (Chaos) and 80 Magranon faith (Freedom) will login with 80 faith. If they're on Chaos, they'll be 80 faith Libila. If they're on Freedom, they'll be 80 faith Magranon. Afterwards, considering everyone has a free faith transfer, you can elect to go Libila, Magranon, or whatever else you want at 80 faith.
  7. We'll be looking at ways to make Rite of Death functional on Freedom without being a griefing tool. With the new rite tech available, we have more options than before, and getting some good ideas for new benefits to Rite of Death would help along that process. Now that Rites have an effect that lasts 24 hours after being cast, what type of benefit should Rite of Death grant the server when cast on Freedom?
  8. Minor update: Priest Rework is now active on the Oracle test server. This is a PvE server and will more closely mimic functionality on Freedom. Libila is now enabled on PvE servers. Some spells are disabled, notably Corrupt (previously Fungus), Zombie Infestation, Land of the Dead, and Rite of Death. Converting a player to Libila on a PvE server should no longer move them into the Horde of the Summoned kingdom. This functionality remains on PvP servers, where converting to Libila will automatically transfer you to the Horde of the Summoned. Dark Messenger can now be used by players in WL kingdoms (including Freedom).
  9. I worked at an elementary school a while ago, and something they were experimenting with was Code Combat. They wanted me to make a judgement call as to whether or not it was worth purchasing the subscription for the school. I spent the whole day on it, and my judgement that it was both extremely enjoyable and actually very solid at teaching the fundamentals of coding. I highly recommend it. The first whole set (40ish levels?) is free and runs in the browser, so give it a shot yourself and see what you think. It's a bit cheesy and over the top, but if you're able to get past that, it's a really neat way to learn how to code.
  10. It doesn't, and that's why further changes are planned.
  11. My philosophy aligns with increasing the power of other objects instead of "nerfing" existing content. It does create a bit of power creep, but so long as it's controlled and met with increasing challenges, it's really not that big of an issue. That said, the Bloodthirst change was absolutely necessary. This is because it was broken by concept and not through value. The old Bloodthirst functioned by adding flat damage on every attack. The new Bloodthirst increases damage using a multiplier. Some hypothetical examples: Old Bloodthirst at 10k would give +10,000 damage per hit. A 90QL huge axe hits for 25,000 damage per swing, once per 5 seconds. DPS is 5,000. A 90QL short sword hits for 12,000 damage per swing, once per 3 seconds. DPS is 4,000. If the huge axe has 10k BT, it would've had 35,000 damage per swing, once per 5 seconds. DPS is 7,000. If the short sword has 10k BT, it would've had 22,000 damage per swing, once per 3 seconds. DPS is 7,333. Obviously Bloodthirst was incredibly valuable on fast-attacking weapons. In fact, it turned out that some fast-attacking weapons would straight up outperform their 2h counterparts with identical power Bloodthirst. Take longswords and 2 handed swords for example. In the previous system, given the proper arguments, 2h swords with 10k BT would actually do less damage than a 10k BT longsword. That's just simply not right. We can extend the example above to the new system: If the huge axe has 10k new BT, it will have 33,250 damage per swing, once per 5 seconds. DPS is 6,650. If the short sword has 10k new BT, it will have 16,000 damage per swing, once per 3 seconds. DPS is 5,320. Using a global multiplier instead of an overloaded flat damage increase creates a balanced atmosphere. Now let's imagine that there are plans to remove the minimum swing timer of 3 seconds from the combat system in the future, and a fast-attacking knife with a 1 second attack is planned. The knife does 3,000 damage per swing, once per second. DPS is 3,000. If the knife has 10k old BT, it would do 13,000 damage per swing, once per second. DPS is 13,000, nearly double that of a huge axe with BT and almost triple without. If the knife has 10k new BT, it would do 4,000 damage per swing, once per second. DPS is 4,000. This is reasonable. While there's a time and place that flat damage increases can be implemented, Bloodthirst was in a state where it fundamentally undermined the balance of the weapons in the game. Yes, it's being changed to be a net decrease in damage on most weaponry that currently exists right now. Again, there are other changes that are planned that I'll be working on in the near future (it just takes a bit of time to implement). It will help this situation. However, I'd also argue that even without any further changes, Bloodthirst still has it's own value: Damage is added directly to the hit, allowing it to be calculated as physical damage. This is the only enchant that would not be mitigated by Soul Strength. Since the damage is all physical, it cannot be avoided through the likes of Elemental Immunity in meditation, nor reduced by the new jewelry enchants. Elemental enchants do not modify the base hit, and therefore do not apply secondary effects from material such as lead weaponry. Lead weaponry will apply larger poison wounds if Bloodthirst is applied. I personally believe that the argument for Bloodthirst being dead in the water is heavily overblown, especially considering there are upcoming changes intended for it. I've done my best to explain why it was changed, and I'm aware of the aftermath. We're working to amend the issues brought up by the adjustment, and still feel it was fully necessary both for the existing game balance and making the system more easy to work with in the future.
  12. Venom will no longer glance against any creatures except uniques, which will have their normal 50% glance chance. That chance is static and processed after all other calculations. There may be room to change how that works in the future (as well as the way that creature glance rates works because right now I feel it's less than ideal), but it's outside the scope of this update and therefore will not be changed as part of the priest rework.
  13. I was testing against an enemy player and a bull and it would never glance. Then I spawned a troll and it started to glance, which forced me to go into a deep dive about how the glancing works. Glancing on a player always checks their actual armour. If none is found, they have no armour rating and no glance rating, and therefore the attack never glances. The glance rate for creatures is dependent on half their actual armour rating. Bulls for example have no armour, and therefore no attacks glance. Trolls, on the other hand, have 60% armour and thus glance 30% of the time against any attack. This was where my initial testing failed, since the two targets I used to ensure the changes worked didn't actually have a way to glance the attacks. However, it gets even more interesting. Oakshell provides a unique glance chance of its own. If a player has Oakshell, it provides a global armour glance rate that ignores damage type, and would therefore cause Venom to still glance (up to 33% of the time at 100 power). Furthermore, legendary creatures (or uniques) also have a built-in global 50% chance to glance, which also would apply to Venom. These are unique cases where the target would still glance despite having Venom on the weapon. The primary issue is that creatures would be able to glance the attack if their armour was more than nothing. I've created a fix which should be pushed to the test server on the next update. Thanks for the testing. I believe it will now work as I originally intended from here on out. This also allowed me to fix the salve interactions with glance as well, so they will apply properly in combat scenarios also.
  14. New update to the test server today: All creature enchant spells (Excel, Truehit, Goat Shape, etc.) no longer give the infidel error if the target is not hostile. Hostile targets will still give the infidel error. Lifted the restrictions to create house walls and fences for all priests. This also fixes issues with priests being unable to continue those objects. Bows are now considered weapons for the purposes of enchanting. This allows Bloodthirst, Nimbleness, and similar enchants that target weapons to be cast. Keep in mind that not all weapon enchants actually provide a benefit on bows. Resurrection stones no longer stack with the item protector passive. The item protector grants 35% (same as before), but resurrection stones now override the passive and grant their usual 50%. New messages have been implemented to make it more obvious what occurred. If you have a passive and resurrection stone, the message you get afterwards will reflect what actually saved your items (the passive or the stone). Fixed an issue where Scorn of Libila was not applying Heal Resistance properly. Fixed an issue where Vynora could not flatten tile borders. Fixed an issue where the extra combat damage passive was not reduced from 25% to 15% in certain scenarios. Fixed an issue where Soul Strength was not applying resistance to spells properly in some cases. Known Issues There are no keybinds for new spells and some of the changed spell keybinds no longer function properly. Jewelry enchants give no status indicator for extra damage or protection against elements. Scorn of Libila and Light of Fo aren't properly targeting high-damage wounds as intended under certain circumstances. This covers every problem I'm currently aware of. If there is anything that is either a bug or major concern, please reply here and I'll be sure to get around to either answering or fixing the inquiry.
  15. All of these ideas are exceptional and can be executed in the primary game (look at runes). However, the mark that I see being missed is: How does this work into the actual loop of improving an item? What you're describing here is basically what runes are - attach it and forget about it. Sure it "resets" the item and needs to be improved again, but that's more of a prestige instead of tackling the core issue we're attempting to be solve: the improve/repair gameplay loop. How do we adjust the actual gameplay loop of improve/repair specifically to add more depth to it and give these bonuses? I wasn't there when the game was first being designed (obviously) so I don't know the logic behind the improve/repair design as it stands now. However, I can tell you that, as a personal opinion, I both agree with your statement that damage/repair feels bad while simultaneously disagreeing with you that removing the repair aspect would be beneficial. In short, it does make the improve system feel better, but it also comes with a set of issues unrelated to the actual gameplay itself that poses some issues. Capping the item to your skill creates an artificial boundary where players cannot spend their time to overachieve and make a truly exceptional item. If someone has 70 weapon smithing but obtained a fantastic longsword, you bet they're going to push it to 75-80 if they can. The existence of damage and repair allows the improve system to not artificially cap the quality you can achieve. In theory, with an astronomical amount of luck (and probably a few million years of time), someone with 1 skill could create a 99QL item. Removal of damage and repair during the improvement process would allow players to calculate their effective level with incredible ease. If you currently wanted to see how much time it would take to create a 70QL item with 80 skill, you'd basically just have to guess. The damage and repair system will throw a wrench in most calculations that you do to attempt to figure out the exact amount of time it would take. Sure, with enough effort put in, you could create a simulation program that would take the parameters and figure out the most optimal solution, but it's actually quite difficult. However, if damage and repair was removed from the gameplay loop, then it would be trivial for players to say "I have X skill, how many improves until I get it to Y QL?" A calculator for such a purpose would exist very shortly after the change. That's not to say that removing repair is just a bad idea. I'm mostly just playing devil's advocate here, and I feel that other changes would need to accompany the removal of damage and repair from the improvement process. That's a really good point. I know a few server owners who have experimented with hunting servers, but I'm not fully read in on how they played out or the problems they had to deal with. I'll have to reach out to a few of them and get their thoughts from the owner perspective of things. I think that's the insight I'm missing to really form a proper opinion on the subject.
  16. Well... isn't this thread an interesting one. Just noticed this thread being necro'd today actually. It's actually one of my favorite old posts because it lead to a lot of mods I created in WU that actually did help expand the end-game because of the discussion that happened here. It lead to my implementation of Chaos & Enchanter crystals, a change in the design philosphy of my Spectral Drakes and Reaper mobs, and the addition of a unique scarce resource (Blue Wyvern). Also, the most recent addition that I feel really nailed the end-game philosophy: Leaderboards. While this is no longer truly a relevant topic for the current development of Wurm Online - there is a roadmap that will keep the team busy for ~6 months to a year - there's no harm in discussing what comes after before those decisions are made. Perhaps this is a topic that we'll want to touch on after the current projects. I'm always down for a good discussion, so let's just dive right into it! There's a lot here, and it's all really true. PvP is kind of considered the "end-game" because man is the most dangerous game. The idea behind this whole thread was to discuss ideas in order to change that and provide a more PvE-focused endgame for those who desire it. You can look all over in other games to see how they deal with this issue, but many of them don't apply to Wurm since it's a very different style of game from most MMO's. Since Wurm is very much a sandbox where players need to create their own goals, it goes against the philosophy of the game to throw and NPC down and say "Okay, go do this now. You have to in order to go further." That just doesn't sit well in Wurm. Instead, you need to get something else where the player has the option to do something that would help them, but still make it repeatable. Right now, there's not a whole lot of that in the game. You can consider increasing skill or improving an item/cast as a form of that, where you repeat the action until you achieve the goal you were looking for. Now on the topic of quests that never end, there's a current trend going of infinite scaling difficulty being one of the best solutions. As you go further, things get harder, but the rewards increase. This type of implementation could apply to Wurm in some way. For example, a dungeon of sorts which creates waves of creatures of increasing difficulty and number until you inevitably die due to the difficulty. This is a rather poor example, as it would need to be designed specifically to make it more rewarding than punishing (skill loss would likely turn players away from this for example). However, what if that type of scenario could be translated to improving an item? What if there was some way that you could make a challenge to improve an item, perhaps in the form of a puzzle/mini-game, that would become more and more difficult until you lost? In return, you would gain an increase to the item that would gain some benefit for your effort. I actually had a prototype of a new mod I was working on that would take an approach in this manner, giving a mark on items that would increase their "base" quality. Lets say that someone had increased their base quality of their forge by 30QL. It was then improved by a 90 skill mason. They could see something like the following, where the new "maximum" quality would be 130QL (30 base + the original 100 cap). The forge itself would improve like it was whatever QL shown - 30 (so 113 would actually be improved like an 83 item). As I always say, I have three focuses. Spells/Religion, Combat, and PvP. Adjustments to the combat system are something I'd really like to get into, but it'll be after the other two topics are touched on. The priest rework covers the first aspect, whereas my next work will involve PvP. It's far too early to say anything about what the combat adjustments might look like, so we'll just have to wait and see. I've added this on my WU server and it has been met with positive reception. Designing something around a small hunting party instead of the discrepancy between "I can kill this solo" and "I need 10 people to kill this" would be a really nice void to fill. Adjusting skills with little usage is something I'm also very interested in. Stealing and Tracking are two skills I really have my eyes on since they're almost never used. Alchemy is also a really neat topic that I'd be interested in diving into sometime later down the line as well. It's natural integration with the priest and spell system has me curious about what type of interesting interactions we could come up with. There's also the "throw" option for a target in combat, which is rarely used except to cheese. Making throwing alchemy potions to weaken enemies or strengthen allies could be an interesting avenue to explore. Rares also have a lot of hidden design potential. Due to their scarcity, there's a possibility of making them more versatile. I've always had discussions about a hunting server for my WU servers. Since I added much more difficult mobs than trolls that roam the land, it's been a topic of conversation more than once. I have concerns that it would fail in execution. While the idea is sound, you could end up in a scenario where either everyone moves there to keep it challenging, or players avoid it completely because it takes too long to access. I'm unsure if there's a proper middle ground where neither of those problems exist. My attempt at it was making sure that difficult creatures spawned in biomes (tundra, snow, steppe, etc). That worked out to a decent degree, but it required a map specifically tailored around that fact. A map like that would most likely be on epic if it happened, yeah. Also, the mention of enemy starter towns sparks an interesting idea to me. When designing a game, you generally have two perspectives: the player and the developer. The player wants to achieve all their goals and become as strong as they can. The developer wants to limit their growth to a steady rate to keep them playing, meanwhile making sure they don't become omnipotent. In a way, this creates a back and forth for players and developers, where the developers will create something new, players will use it in an unintended way, the developers will fix it, the players will find another way to achieve the same goal. Rinse and repeat and you've basically got development in a nutshell. One idea would be to make an NPC faction on a PvP server. Give them their own, large deed with well built walls and fortifications. Give them NPC players equipped with good weapons and armor that defend that deed. Allow them to roam and kill players and loot them. Their loot would then be distributed among the raiding parties they send out. These NPC's would be only as strong as the players allowed them to get (with a certain baseline, perhaps ~70-80QL plate/chain), as well as offering a consistent opponent even if the PvP kingdom balance shifts in one direction. Instead of solving player problems with additional players, we put a hostile NPC in place to shift the tide. I can most closely relate this type of option to end-game crisis in Stellaris, which is the public enemy of all players and gives not a single care whether or not you are the strongest or weakest empire in the galaxy. You're an enemy and you'll be under attack. This is quite a big undertaking as a significant amount of AI work would need to be implemented to ensure that they were not easily cheesed in combat. However, back to the point of player vs developer, this would create a really interesting back and forth for development. Every time the players would learn a way to "cheese" the AI, the devs would be able to patch that option and force the players to find another way... until there were none left. You'd be left with an NPC faction that would pose a significant thread and add a new dimension to the macro gameplay on a PvP server. This was the approach I took with my titans in WU to moderate success. There were half a dozen kills using cheese mechanics (rotting touch, sacrificial knives, etc) before I finally managed to force the players to truly fight it head-on in actual combat. While this is easy to implement, the actual reward is where the hard part comes into play. What do you give a player that has it all right now? Economy is something I'm pretty familiar with. The Wyvern server had an issue early on before I had taken it over, where all the currency was drained out of the traders and nobody who joined the server could access any money. The solution put in place (not by me) was injecting hundreds of gold into traders so they wouldn't run out. Needless to say, this caused an issue where the economy was shattered and people could buy whatever they wanted at all times. After I took over as the owner of the server, I was challenged with trying to solve this problem. I tried money sinks (consumable items purchased with currency), increasing upkeep, adjusting value on items, and all sorts of other options. In the end, there wasn't really any way I could solve the underlying problem: players had stockpiled outrageous amounts of wealth. If I add something highly expensive, new players cannot access it for the reward and rich players don't bother because it's not worth it to them. If I add something inexpensive, the rich players buy hundreds of it while normal players scrape by. If I try to directly take money away from the wealthy through a currency reset or increasing money rewards in the game, they get upset (with good reason). A bit of a rant there, I know, but the point is this: I'm not qualified to try and solve the economy problem. I could implement a system that would solve it, if such a thing existed. Actually thinking of the solution, though, I have no idea. There's a thread here on the forums discussing the economy problem in Wurm in-depth and from what I've read the opinions vary widely on ways to solve it, with holes being picked in every suggestion made. This creates a larger gap and void between established players and new players. Adding content to the game that is fully locked behind a large grind is generally going to be viewed poorly. For example, if we added a new weapon that was better than all the rest locked behind 99 weapon smithing, there's probably going to be some significant complaints. There's a limitation of interactivity in the game right now. Most of the actions are done through context menus or keybinds. The UI doesn't really support interaction too far beyond that (for the moment). This is something that would have to wait for the UI overhaul before being tackled due to the input limitations of the game. Think of how you would interact to play chess in-game right now. What buttons would you use? I do understand that feeling where you're just going through the motions again, and most of the enjoyment comes from that first time around when you're truly working your way towards something. I feel that could possibly be replicated with the right system. Give people a goal to strive for in the overall. In a way, the valrei map is a form of this, where players can do in-game missions to have an effect on the "global" board. A system similar to that, but with goals that are far more attainable and unique, might be something interesting to tackle. This would create incentive for full villages to make a team effort to accomplish something on a macro scale for a reason beyond just doing it. I've been thinking about adding more depth to things, but I have a question to pose: How would you add depth to improving an item? Almost everything in the game uses improve/repair as the functions to make it better. How would you add depth and break that gameplay loop? This was something I was interested in doing to discourage macro gameplay on my private server. Most of the ideas had flaws except for a certain few, and I'd be interested to see if we can brainstorm something that truly hits the marks. Here's some restrictions: Must be an addition to improve/repair, cannot change it fundamentally. Some people (myself included) actually like to use Wurm as a game I can play while watching a TV show. When a new season comes out of a show I enjoy, logging into Wurm to improve some items while I watch it on my other monitor is something I really like. When I posed changes that would break this gameplay loop, it was met with negative reception. Cannot be a mild efficiency increase. What I mean is that it can't just be something to make it faster to improve. We want something that will actually affect the end result without just meaning we get from QL X to QL Y faster. This would just be met with people ignoring the system if it's too hard or becoming too fast by always doing it. Using outside resources is a bonus. One idea was using "reinforcements" or "augments" of some kind during the improve/repair process. These would be other items created through other skills (like jewelry smithing or something) that would give bonus effects to the item at the end. This gives value to other skills while also allowing players to target what type of augmentation they want their item to undergo while working on it.
  17. Made a round of changes which should now be on the test server: Bless and Refresh no longer give "would never help the infidel" error if the target is not hostile. Hostile targets will still give the infidel error. Fireheart cast time increased to 7 seconds from 5 seconds. Shard of Ice cast time increased to 7 seconds from 5 seconds. Fo's combat rating bonus at 70 faith now also applies in tundra. Fo's and his demigods' stamina bonus now applies to tundra. Tosiek now has the spells Bloodthirst and Web Armour. Tosiek no longer has the spell Life Transfer. Smeagain now has the item protection on death passive. Natural favor regeneration has been significantly improved. It now regenerates faster and refills favor every 5 seconds instead of 10 seconds. Damage enchants Flaming Aura, Frostbrand, and Essence Drain no longer have a minimum damage threshold for a wound to be applied. Life Transfer and Essence Drain no longer have a minimum damage threshold for healing to be applied. Restrictions for Libila priests have been lifted: Farming, Harvesting, Sowing, Planting, Gathering. Fixed a bug where converted damage types through salves or the Venom spell would not calculate glance chances properly. Fixed an issue where monsters were attacking priests with the non-aggressive monster passive. Sorry Emoo. I didn't touch on everything I wanted to yet, so this is up next: Scorn of Libila weirdness - not applying healing resistance, not healing wounds properly, etc. Item Protection on death revisited - we'll be changing it to make it no longer stack with resurrection stone. Instead, it will offer 35% chance passively, but a resurrection stone will overwrite that with it's normal 50% chance. BL characters being able to harvest from mycelium trees and similar If anything was reported that is not fixed in these notes or mentioned here, please reply here with a new iteration of the report. I've done my best to go through all of the pages and fix what I've seen but there's just simply too many comments (and words, frankly) for me to catch everything.
  18. Hey, sorry for the long timeout. I'm going to address the elephant in the room that's been mentioned off hand a few times. It's almost a month into the public testing, there's 13 pages worth of discussion, yet nothing has changed and there's only a few responses with promised changes but nothing has actually happened. What gives? I believe in transparency so the truth is I haven't coded almost anything for about a month now. In early October, I had to visit the ER for an illness and was diagnosed with an infection that lasted nearly a week. The testing opened up shortly afterwards. I kept up with the thread, but also knew that there was going to be a ton of bills I had to pay that I was not quite prepared for. I spent most of my month looking for work and moving assets around to get money to pay for them. However, due to a clerical error the bills were delayed heavily (until last week), insurance was less than helpful, and I was left with several thousands worth of bills to pay. It took the help of some friends and family to get everything organized in such a way that I could pay the bills and get back on track. I'm now stable and healthy and can continue working on things. I'm still unemployed (despite dozens of applications), but I'm at least still looking and have enough money to continue for a few more months. So to answer the question of when the changes come, the answer is soon. I'll be back to coding more changes as soon as I finish posting this response. Next up, I'm about 2 weeks behind on responses to comments in this thread. Again, I've read every post (and the developers discuss this thread in it's entirety), so don't think you're being ignored if I don't respond to it here. I'm simply selecting the ones that have good content and I have solid answers to. So, with that out of the way, let's dive right into it: QL affects the damage and protection enchants in the same way QL affects nolocate. This means it's averages the QL and the cast power and uses that as the "amount" being used. A 30QL ring with 70 power is the same as a 80QL ring with 20 power, since they both average to 50 "actual power." I've addressed LT in as many ways as I can but the long and the short of it is that there are abuse cases at play that not everyone can see. While it'd be nice to just ignore LT as a "working mechanic" and let it continue doing what it's doing for the vast majority of players, the fact that there are nasty abuse cases means that solving the problem remains a higher priority. So to answer "if it isn't broken don't fix it" - it is broken. We're fixing it. There's no plans to revert it back to the deity you follow being the reason that guards attack you. Kingdoms are at war with eachother, and there's no reason for guards to attack based on someone's religion. From a simulation standpoint, how would a guard know what religion you follow anyway? It's a much cleaner implementation to make it Kingdom vs Kingdom instead of being Kingdom + Religion vs Kingdom OR Religion OR Kingdom + Religion. It's just way too hard to convey what works and what doesn't to the player if the religion gets involved. So, for simplicity: Kingdoms will determine whether or not a guard attacks you. I really wish that Gary was on the test server so people could see what he does, but since it's been a while and he's still not, here's Gary's spell list: Do keep in mind that this is of course still subject to change. Gary's list was actually something identified early in testing as missing quite a bit (it rolled really awful). I'll be looking at ensuring a certain amount of passives are rolled as a guarantee for all deities to make him a bit more interesting. To follow up on that, Truehit being WL aside from Libila isn't entirely intentional and I'll be looking at a few of the spell rolls as well to see if something needs to change there. Truehit doesn't click to me as something that should be required to distinguish between WL and BL to roll... but perhaps we should make it more likely to roll on BL demigods. In short, I'll look into it. Finally, in regards to allowing priest restrictions, it's an ongoing discussion as to what else needs to change, but the feedback and opinion is valuable. Removing AoE healing from Nathan should solve a lot of the problems. I think he's still going to be a top choice, especially as a combat priest. The combination of a solid spell list and the damage bonus just makes him extremely appealing. This might end up being the new "Smeagain" if we're not careful and I believe you've identified that perfectly. However, due to the changes in QoL with healing, it's very possible we may need to remove some of the other healing spells as well (Focused Will, Cure Medium, and Cure Serious). Do you think moving Nathan away from being an all-purpose warrior and instead focusing him as an "aggressive all-in with no healing" fighter would be a good solution? Curious what you think of that. My current proposal would be to remove Focused Will, Cure Medium, and Scorn of Libila. Then re-buff with Frantic Charge. This leaves him with Cure Serious so he's at least got the most ineffective heal for combat, but can at least heal himself if played as a solo priest. Death item protection on Smeagain sounds fine by me. The fact that the current iteration of Smeagain currently has it means it shouldn't be a very big deal to leave it intact for the changes. Essence Drain currently has an issue where the healing is too low to pass the threshold. I've done some debugging based on your feedback and it's "calculated" correctly but doesn't apply on armoured targets because the healing is too low to actually register as healing. I'll be working on it, and I appreciate the testing! The unfortunate truth is that if we didn't allow full dispelling of buffs rather quickly during combat, players would run in as gods every single time. Players will use the system to their advantage by spamming "garbage" buffs on themselves before combat to "mask" the rest of their buffs. They cast Bearpaws, Oakshell, Truehit, Excel, Frantic Charge, and Truestrike in that order. Now you can get rid of Bearpaws and Oakshell easily, but then it starts to get harder as you hit Truehit. This leaves players the option of making sure that some of their buffs stay intact during combat by casting them last. I'm not overly familiar with the order in which dispel actually removes the effects, but I know that it does it based on what was casted first for the first round. When buffs are cast mid-combat... I'm not sure what happens. That's something that would need to be tested. The argument could be made that random dispels (dispel a random effect instead of in order) could be a good option. However, that's going to end up feeling bad since that literally injects RNG into the combat experience, which is bad. I'm aiming to move away from RNG during combat and allow a more cerebral combat between the individuals in battle. There is likely another alternative that would both make it so players could dispel the effects they want to get rid of using intelligence instead of RNG or allowing the opponent to dictate their buffs. If you have any ideas on how to combat this type of gameplay while keeping the combat loop intact, I'm very interested to hear them. Farming was a restriction from before the chopped veggies "meta" became ingrained for priests. The truth is, this restriction could probably be lifted universally because of how the game has shifted without issue. It'll have to be a decision made by the dev team, so I can't give a solid answer right now. However, priest restrictions are something that really needs a nice full-blown discussion about where the dev team really wants them to land. When we figure it out, we'll relay that vision. Disabling some spells on Freedom as a "quick fix" seems like an option, but again... it's a ton of tiny things piled on top. Again, it's just simply outside the scope of the changes we're attempting to do in this specific update. I can't give a full answer to the abuse cases since they are still available for use on the live server. The problem scenario isn't specific to rifts or anything, however most of the concerns here involve the effect of LT during rifts. It's unlikely we'll get a proper test of how a rift works using the new system on the test server. However, we can make adjustments similar to your "rift interference" if it causes problems on live when the priest rework goes live. You actually nailed a few spells that are still awaiting changes. I'm not going into detail because the reworks involve something we might end up scrapping (and they're not even done yet). When they're ready, Fo might become a more interesting choice. I'd love to see some more interactions with healing apparatus and Fo. It's a really weird situation where alchemy is seriously under-used, and seeing a link between alchemy and spellcasting to really embrace the full-fledged "druid" or "wizard" playstyle would be an interesting thing to delve into. A lot of the work I put into this update is behind the scenes, making the spell system more flexible to work into other gameplay mechanics. This means we could eventually see changes in the future where a full-blown alchemy update would have a link to spell casting. New spells are easier to make than ever, and could potentially be included. Again, that's mostly hypothetical... but perhaps. In terms of current buffs, we've already got a few changes in store. We'll see how those play out and if it's still not enough, we'll investigate options like linking Fo to healing covers, cotton, or what not. I responded in purple within the quote itself except for the final part. The truth is that we currently don't have any intention of giving players the ability to naturally improve items with their skills when playing as a priest. The intention is to allow priests to play solo with lower quality tools than normal. While we might not have hit this mark perfectly (not being able to cut/mine means you can't make the tools in the first place), it's a step in the right direction. Allowing improvement would break the core identity of a priest in Wurm and cause a great deal of players to forego being a follower and instead just priest all their characters. Even with other restrictions in place, having the ability to improve items (any items) would allow players to become too versatile. Priesting is viewed as a choice, not an upgrade. There was a suggestion about allowing players to improve items through spells which might become an option (as it avoids giving skill gain to the crafting profession). However, whether or not that happens and if so to what degree is still up in the air. As for the current time, the current mindset is that priests will not be allowed to improve items. Separation of restrictions between PvE and PvP is always an option. There has been some comments against allowing continue/repair on PvP servers and it's very possible that restriction will remain intact on PvP servers if necessary. I really like the comment about whether or not your are having fun playing your character. That's something that's so core to my view on the game. I'm enthralled by the depth of gameplay systems in Wurm and that's what I truly find fascinating. Interacting and experimenting with how all these systems interact is what I find enjoyment with. Changes should be made with the goal of making the game more enjoyable to play and removing some of the pain of interacting with these systems. The priest rework is a step in that direction, removing some of the pain of interacting with the game world while playing as a priest. However, we're trying to keep the identity of priests intact, as it's been core to the gameplay of Wurm since the very beginning. If priests were new and coming out today, I bet you'd see them with none of the restrictions they currently have. Truth is that it's an old gameplay system that was designed for a different time and hasn't aged well. We're tweaking it a bit and making it a bit more modern, while keeping true to the vision of the game that was made years ago. Armour DR will apply. For example, wearing Chain you would take 67.5% less damage (you missed the base 5% DR that naturally occurs in your statements) from Venom attacks. However, even if it's a maul, it would no longer be modified by the 110% effectiveness against Crushing attacks. Without venom, chain would reduce a maul/crushing attack by 72.19%. Chance to glance using crushing attacks against chain is 25%. This gives chain a rough effectiveness of ~80.53% against crushing attacks when you account for 25% of damage being 100% reduced. With venom, this would bypass the effectiveness and glance rate, giving the target a 0% chance to glance and would always calculate damage as being reduced by 67.5%. In this scenario, Venom is causing the maul to deal nearly 165% increased damage since it's bypassing the armour modifiers. However, on the flip side, this can be detrimental. If we change the armour type to plate, we're seeing a 70% effectiveness with Venom and 76.73% effectiveness without. This is a 111% increase in damage when using Venom. Then you consider that you're missing up to 33% fire damage from Flaming Aura and you're actually doing less damage with Venom in this situation. Depending on what you're aiming to accomplish, it should be interesting to see the results of the new Venom (when it's working properly). I can see why it came off this way and it was poorly relayed by me as to why we made the change. I didn't want to tip the hand too much as it involves exploitation and abuse. There's no easy way to discuss it because those abuse cases are still available on the live server and stating too much would give players the ability to do actions they otherwise shouldn't on live. That said, I'll try to do a better job as to relaying why things were changed in the future. Agreed on all fronts, really. I'll give Tosiek Bloodthirst instead of Life Transfer. He can also obtain Web Armour. The infidel error is something I have intimate experience with in my Wurm Unlimited modding ventures, as getting certain spells to interact properly under certain circumstances has been incredibly painful. I'll be looking at the logic for how that's determined and see if I can improve it to allow more interaction of priests in the same kingdom. I think I touched on Smeagain resurrection in a comment above I disagree on Nahjo. I believe he has some of the most unique and powerful abilities that every base deity has to offer. Cure Light is actually a crazy efficient PvE heal now that you can target-cast it on a creature instead of having to target the wound. I believe Frantic Charge is highly undervalued right now and is one of Magranon's best spells for combat. He also has Ice Pillar which is now a powerful AoE spell. Combine that with the utility of Genesis, WoA, and Essence Drain and I'm unsure what he's missing really. Perhaps I'm not viewing him in the same way, though. His passives are weak aside from the 10% skill gain... but when you combine that with his powerful spell list? I don't think he's that bad. Maybe I'm missing something, though. Agreed on Paaweelr. I think he's appealing enough that people would debate going between Vynora and him. Fo has changes coming as stated earlier in this post. I definitely agree that Fo and probably Libila should get something for being followers. It's something I keep thinking about, but relegating it to skill gain in nature or similar seems like a really cheap solution. I'd really like to add something more interesting so it's not just "have more skill" and instead "this is something cool you get." Yeah, sorry about that. I addressed this in the header of this post. Hopefully it serves as a sufficient explanation. Artifacts are still something I need to look into. It's a minor priority due to their lack of use right now, though. Artifacts are a topic unto themselves and may need to be touched later down the line outside the scope of this update. Current implementation, subject to change: Note that Hell Strength applies that curve to both Soul Strength and Body Strength. To the best of my knowledge, yes. Players without premium will still obtain the free faith switch. Unlocking the ability to improve is probably worse than just making it work from the start. While unlocking spells makes sense, putting the ability to perform a basic action behind a grind will be viewed quite negatively in implementation. It's something that sounds neat on paper, but in reality it leads players to look at the grind ahead of them to unlock the ability to do something simple and say "nah not worth" and leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Giving favor per hit is an interesting idea. If the implementation of Essence Drain doesn't work out how we intend it, this seems like a good buff to give it. For now, I think keeping on track with the current purpose of the spell (LT for Libila) without mucking it's identity with new mechanics out the gate is the way to go. Meditation linked to favor gain could be something interesting. I'm not sure how that would work out in reality but I'll play around with it a bit and see how it feels. I think there's an argument to be made that an entire sub-forum is warranted. That's just the scale of this rework and the amount of feedback is overwhelming. That said, I'd end up reading everything in either case. In hindsight, there probably should've been a sub-forum entirely dedicated to this priest rework and it's something to consider for future large-scale changes of a similar nature. ----- That only took 3 hours to write. I was intending to actually do something immediately after but 6 pages worth of comments and responses alongside checking data/code, creating charts, and quick testing to confirm theories has been more time-consuming than I thought. Again, huge thanks to everyone for their comments, feedback, and insight. However, I want to follow-up with a single question that should help any changes that need to be made immediately. If these changes were to go live, in their current form, on Monday. What change(s) would bother you most? Keep in mind this doesn't mean they're going live on Monday (they're not). I'm just trying to direct the conversation a bit and try and target the "sore points" of this patch so I can work them out a bit. Hope everyone had a good Halloween and I'll check back in the next few days (and hopefully with patch notes!).
  19. Still reading through all the comments, but not enough time to write up a full response to everything. However, the back-and-forth over the LT change has spiraled out of control. While I appreciate the concern, the LT change was one that was hotly debated internally when the change was made. Many of the arguments stated here have been discussed among the dev team already months ago when we were first working through this change. I ended up making the decision to push the change, then requested testing of the change to determine whether or not it would stay. In the end, after testing, it was determined to have insignificant enough effect on normal play that we opted to continue along that development path. We even had questioned whether the resistance was being calculated correctly because the resistance time was so low after each hit. This is also an important note. The examples I presented are very weak examples of abuse cases for the current state of LT and that's on me for not making it clear. While I understand players seeking more logic behind the change than what's been given, doing so would simply be stating existing exploits that are present in the game that players could currently use on the live servers. All that said, if the change turns out to be impacting player's gameplay negatively, we can make changes such as increasing LT's healing done, reducing the healing resistance applied specifically by LT, or any number of other changes to make it better. However, those changes would be done in response to testing results. If you're concerned, then go give it a shot on the public test server and share your findings. That's what this thread is here for, after all!
  20. I can't write a full response to everything right now but as a quick comment: @Oblivionnreaverhit the nail on the head with this. Basically, players were capable of using livestock as a "healing source" during unique fights and similar. Instead of using actual healing spells through a Fo priest or similar, I've seen situations where a group of players would have the player tanking the unique target nearby horses, pigs, or whatever that were brought along. Each time the player was hit by the unique, they would heal up through a big hit on a low-armour target. Personal experience says that an LT longsword hit on a pig can heal the player for upwards of 10-15 damage on a wound. Given proper armour, shield, and skill, a tank could effectively hold a unique indefinitely due to LT never having healing resistance, with the life pool of the neutral creatures becoming an extension of the player's HP. When I'm talking about abuse cases regarding LT, it's situations like that which I refer to. This is one example, but there's a few others that this change also shores up.
  21. Lots of comments to read through. I'll be working on some changes next week based on feedback, so now seems like a good time to roll through some of the newer comments and respond to everything. However, to follow up on my post last week, we've discussed Bloodthirst internally and have some changes planned for it. Also, I appreciate the change in tone from the comments. This is feeling more like proper constructive criticism and discussion, which is highly productive. Let's get right into it. Confirmed through testing that the attuned isn't working. That was something that actually ended up happening on Emoo's stream which was a pretty funny moment. "Libila now makes monsters passive!" as he casually has his face torn off by a troll. I'll bring up the Libila farming restriction and see what the team thinks. The acid/frost/fire salves do change the glance rates of the weapon. For example, a weapon enchanted with the salve of frost will use the cold damage glance rate and damage effectiveness against the target's armour. Venom should never glance but judging from another comment it appears it may not be working as intended. I've got a note to investigate that interaction and ensure it's working properly. My work in several different versions of the combat system makes it really hard to keep track of what's doing what in the current iteration. Really interesting question. My current knowledge states that enemies for guards are determined by kingdom, not by religion. If there's a WL priest in a BL kingdom, the guards should not attack the WLer simply because it's a BL kingdom. Maybe I'm mistaken, but that should be how it currently works and if it doesn't, then it probably needs to be looked at changing. Agreed. I've got a note to bring this up. Seems reasonable enough, but I'll make sure to get it confirmed by the team and then implemented. In regards to the comment about Rebirth, while they share the same mechanic, they're actually fundamentally different in their use. Dominate can only be used on monsters. Charm can only be used on animals. Rebirth can be used on anything. Also, it can make for an interesting utility during combat whereas dominate and charm are more of a pre-planned function. I remember an encounter with a player in a 1 on 1 where we dehorsed eachother. The fight was looking pretty poor for myself, so I began to run away and formed a decent distance. Instead of chasing after me on foot, he resurrected his horse, equipped the gear, and ran me down. If rebirth is changed to auto-equip gear from the corpse, that changes a bit of the meta-game around rebirth being used where dead horses and players would have their gear remain inside of them instead of being extracted and the corpse being thrown on the ground again. There's probably some changes coming to Rebirth, but it's up to a discussion with the team to determine the direction it should go. This is something that's been mentioned many times. However as of the current situation I can't code this solution in. It requires a database change which is out of my hands directly. I'll poke again and see what we can do. Since I was the one who mentioned it in the video, I'll try to clarify my thoughts here. What's holding Libila back from being brought to Freedom isn't entirely down to the code, but there is some concern there. While you can look at Wurm Unlimited servers and say "hey look they can do it why can't we?" - it's not exactly that simple when it comes to Wurm Online. There's other factors at play that Wurm Unlimited servers can shrug off as being a "minor bug" which could cause major issues on the live realm. For example, most of the servers are using the public available fixes for Libila on Freedom. However, there's very rarely a case that they cast Zombie Infestation or Land of the Dead because the players don't actually use it. When they do, the server owner can step in and clean up the situation. Just as a reminder, I've personally coded some of the "fixes" that allow Libila to be played on Wurm Unlimited servers and been on the receiving end of some of those massive bugs that are caused when players start messing with things that weren't designed to function that way. You can always counter with "okay then just fix those spells too" - to which I would counter "what else is broken?" While I'd love to investigate that and potentially work towards this goal, the dev team has decided that it was outside the scope of what we want to accomplish with this specific update and that the option remains open for sometime in the future. Retrograde echos this statement in the video linked. Good question. I haven't actually looked at what would become of the Artifacts since their demise is essentially a hidden attribute. On first thought I imagine their functionality would change to the new demise instead, but it's a topic for conversation. Thanks for mentioning it. The jewelry buffs are planned to be added to spell effects. In fact, the visuals for them were already done a while ago but I entirely forgot to actually code it in for the public testing version. My bad. I'll get to it in the near future. I also am a firm believer that the spell effects window should show everything affecting you. It was mentioned that the way the jewelry stacks is kind of unintuitive. It was a solution I quickly thought of while piecing things together. To directly answer your question: Yes you would receive the full effect from each individual enchant. 7.5% from frost and fire in the 100 Blaze/Glacial scenario. The above rule also applies to the protection enchants. Your math is correct. It should be 133.3% effectiveness of the 7.5% (7.5 * 1.33... = 10) with two 100QL/100 cast items equipped, and 150% (7.5 * 1.5 = 11.25) with three 100QL/100 cast items equipped. The Life Transfer "nerf" is being terribly overstated. I'd like to see some actual testing done on the test server and tell me what's wrong with the current iteration of it. Give some details about how much damage your taking, what the buff is going up to each hit, how much health you're being healed. Give it an honest attempt on the public test server. This is one change that looks like a huge hit on paper but in reality is just shoring up some abuse cases. I touched on Rebirth in a previous response so I'm picking out Oakshell here. The oakshell change was worded weirdly. It's damage resistance got reduced, yes, but it is still equivalent to dragonscale with a 100 cast. Previously, it was better than dragonscale by a factor of 33%. You would take 33% less damage with a 100 cast oakshell than you would with dragonscale. Now, it's been brought in line with the best armour of the game to make combat more easily approachable. This change had to happen due to the difference in how dispelling creatures works now. Players will be able to potentially cast and keep an oakshell on themselves in PvP. This drifts over to "nerf" the PvE version of the spell, but calling a free dragonscale set useless seems a bit overboard. The wording of the oakshell change makes it seem like it's a PvP-only spell but it's been untouched on PvE. You can still cast it on both players and creatures in Freedom. It's just a really awkward phrasing for how the change was made because it was written hastily. I wrote it by the way, so don't flame Retrograde for copying over my horrible phrasing! That's a lot. I wrote my responses in bullet form as a response using purple text instead because trying to play "match the bullets" wasn't working for me on my initial draft. Again responded in the quote itself due to bullet matching problems. On my WU server I run mods that improve natural favor regeneration. I'm all for the change, so I'll spark a discussion about it in the dev chat and see what they think. Ouch, that's a pretty scathing review of Fo. Let me try and defend our nature-loving overlord. Fo has Cure Light, Cure Medium, and Cure Serious. The new spell rolling has guaranteed that Fo will be the only deity among all of them to obtain all three of these healing spells. This makes him uniquely attuned to be the most favor-efficient healer. Due to the QoL changes, you can now cast Cure spells directly on a target and it will auto-target the highest valid wound and heal it. No more opening someone's equipment, finding the wound, and casting the proper heal. Just point-click now. Cleanse was a requested spell due that has uses for changing dirt to grass. You can now force grass to grow after completing a construction project and wanting your lawn back on PvE. There was also no easy way to remove Mycelium from PvP servers, which this spell now does. With those points out of the way, I'm actually struggling to find other ways to defend Fo. So in essence, aside from the above, you're basically right. I will, however, mention that a spell or two is pending a rework that Fo has access to. Hopefully those reworks will make him more appealing. That said, what changes would you like to see that would bring Fo to the forefront? Do you think that allowing Fo to have a unique passive that reduces the healing resistance penalty might be a good idea? Just throwing out an example, maybe inflict only half the healing resistance penalty when the spell is cast from a Fo priest? In essence, you've hit the nail on the head. We've got the shape complete, but it's just a bit off. We're looking for player feedback to help finalize it's form before pushing it to live. What situations has the healing resistance from LT been impacting your play on the testing server? We don't want players to sit there healing their wounds with cotton. And the healing resistance on LT, as stated a million times already, is not as severe as everyone is painting it right now. When actually in use, the effects are hardly felt. Life Transfer is just as good as it's always been outside of abuse cases. Responded to the previous comment but I want to mention here that there is nothing the dev team is pushing as an agenda. There will be an offering of full faith switches to every player in the game when this update goes live. Nobody is aiming to make their priest better than the rest. I would mark success from this update being dependent on an equivalent ratio of players taking every god. With 10 deities in play, that'd be 10% of priests on each deity. It's probably not going to be perfect, but it's something we're aiming towards. Your concerns aren't falling on deaf ears, and as mentioned in my earlier post - I'm reading everything posted here.
  22. That sounds like it's not working as intended. It should be removing 1% of your stamina per 1% of health healed. Looked briefly at it and it seems body stamina is affecting it in a weird way. I'll have to look further into it.
  23. Late to the party. Unfortunately, my internet was out for most of yesterday and by the time I got it back, I was already ready to get to bed. There's common consensus about several of the changes, which I'll dive into shortly - but first I want to state two points. First, as mentioned, this is public testing and things are subject to change, especially regarding numeric adjustments. That also doesn't mean these changes are set in stone. One common topic is the Bloodthirst change. It's something we'll discuss based on feedback and review again. Secondly, why some of the changes seem weird, off balance, or not true to the identity of Wurm. For that, the simple answer is that there's just an outrageous amount of changes here and we were ambitious enough to try and tackle absolutely everything. It should be easy to connect the fact that the notes are almost 10 pages long (in the document we're using) and that there will likely be something we didn't get just right. That's literally why this public test is happening. Players will call us out on what we did wrong, and we'll pivot and adjust based on that feedback. That said, as my own personal comment, I'd like to request a bit more civility when criticizing the changes. It's easy to take constructive criticism and suggestions. It's hard to take outright flames with comments such as it being the worst change ever or that the devs have no clue what they're doing with this or that or the other thing. These changes are bound to cause some anxiety considering the gravity of what's changing. I encourage people to speak their mind, just remember manners when doing so. With that out of the way, I'll dive right into some responses to some of the comments here. If I missed a few, don't think it's ignored. There's just a lot and I'm picking out the ones with really focused points that I can address directly instead of ones with multiple thoughts. The spell rerolls are, in my eyes, a necessary evil. This is our one opportunity to change the spell lists of the demigods and get them correct. That's not to say they're now perfect. It's also not to say it's better than before, either. It might not be. But at the end of the day, this is the one and only opportunity we have to shift everything into a healthy game state through spell list changes to avoid a situation where a single one becomes the "best" under all circumstances. See Smeagain on the PvP servers as a good example of this. Since this is the time we'll be offering a full faith switch, it's the only proper time to adjust spell lists to ensure balance. That said, there's no reason the formula cannot be adjusted more than what it already has been. There's also logic behind making special cases for the existing gods and allowing them to retain what makes them unique. To do that, however, we would want a really good reason to do it. So, to anyone who would like to see a spell added or removed from a god list, answer these questions: Why does the god deserve the spell (or not)? Is it simply because they had it before? Does it allow them to fill a niche where the god would be capable of doing something unique instead of being bland and boring? What are the pros/cons compared to their base god? One of the major efforts was to balance them closer to the base gods while the base gods obtained unique benefits and spell combinations. Why would you choose X over Y, and why would you choose Y over X? There should never be a case where X is completely better than Y, or vice-versa. These are going to be some of the more deep conversations to have in the future. Spell list changes are likely to be a hot topic as people play with the changes and see how all the pieces fit together. In regards to disintegrate, it's actually on the list of things to touch on but haven't gotten around to it yet. I'd say about 90-95% of the priest rework "content" is complete. There's still a couple things on the list that still need to be done, and touching on disintegrate would be one of them that we still need to review. This is regarding the Bloodthirst change to now work identically on Freedom as it does on Epic. There's been a lot of comments directed at this change in specific, and even mention of players selling BT weapons for cheap because of these notes. In fairness, I believe the players are spot on about this, and Bloodthirst loses its identity and edge with the change. We'll have to have a discussion on what else we can do to adjust Bloodthirst to make it more unique. Can't really say what that might be, but don't get too up in arms about it. We hear you on it, we'll work on it, and get back to you when we have a plan. It's been mentioned many times before that the LT change integrated with the healing system doesn't have a huge amount of effect. The only suggestion I have is to actually try it before you knock it. Players who aren't being abusive with the system will hardly notice it. This comment is in regards to "damage ignores armour" on spells. By armour, we mean specifically item armour. For example, iron plate, dragonscale, studded leather, etc. I believe your question is whether or not the damage effectiveness on the piece of armour applies, such as casting a cold spell on someone wearing cloth would normally reduce damage taken. The simple answer to that question is that it will just simply ignore the cloth armour being equipped. The wound applied doesn't pass the "armour" itself and instead hits the target. Resistance from tomes, spell effects, and enchants would apply. Damage effectiveness from armour is ignored, as well as glance rate and DR. SotG still affects spells. Maybe it shouldn't. Probably a topic for discussion. AoE spells now deal very small wounds but more frequently. The calculation for interrupt is based on damage taken. Since each damage instance is very low, the calculation almost always favors the player getting attacked and makes it so they don't get interrupted. There's definitely a possibility to add an "interrupt" sequence when the cast initially goes down as a surprise factor for enemies caught off guard. That's something that could be worth investigating and trying out. Yes, resurrecting a troll will prevent it from being able to use its club since it cannot be equipped. There's a chance we could move the items from the corpse onto the resurrected unit instead (it actually makes sense now that I think about it). This would cause the rebirthed unit to drop the gear when it dies. This is something I could definitely see changing in the future, but I'm concerned about abuse cases (rebirthing someone you don't have permission to loot). We'll have to discuss it and see what happens. In regards to resurrecting players, the code for that is extremely old and has so many safeguards and checks for abuse that it's kind of hard to digest. I think there may be a situation where we could make some adjustments to make it a bit more viable to resurrect enemy combatants or fallen foes on the battlefield. How interesting it would be if a very strong player died in combat, his corpse was taken by an ally, then they resurrected him and had two of him for the next fight. Really curious what type of interesting interactions could happen there. Finally, the concern about the non-priest players being useless is a bit over-exaggerated, I believe. I don't think it's shifted to "priests are mains and crafters are alts" with the amount we reduced the restrictions by. Instead, I believe that it's shifted to "do I want my priest or non-priest to be my main." There's now a choice - a decision to make - about how you want to play the game. That type of decision is left completely up to the player. If you feel that the restrictions aren't limiting to the point where you'd like to play like that... by all means, do so! That's a good thing! You'll have more tools available to you and perks other players wont have. In my opinion, being able to choose how you play and decide what you're willing to sacrifice for further benefits is just outright better than before. However, that's only my opinion. If you still feel otherwise, go a bit deeper and explain the thought process. I'm interested to hear predictions of how these restrictions being reduced will change the atmosphere of the game. Yikes. Sorry about that phrasing. Sometimes I write notes quickly and don't articulate the change properly. As a clarification: Oakshell can still be cast on players and creatures on PvE servers. However, on PvP servers, you can no longer cast on creatures (horses etc). Hopefully that helps with the understanding of the change. Well, I guess this all boils back down to how the gods are viewed. Fo is considered a healer, and not a main damage threat. Venom has been changed to make it more viable not as a "damage" increase but instead as a different style of utility that could be useful in certain situations. This is because armour has no effectiveness, DR, or glance rate versus poison type wounds. Venom is now essentially the Wurm equivalent of "true" or "chaos" damage. Vynora is considered an enchanter. However, it was also balanced around being the highest top-end nuker in the game too. Her spells have the largest power scaling based on cast power. High channeling vynora priests will do more damage per spell cast than Magranon and Libila priests. This sets her into a unique role where she can be a useful backline nuker, supports with buffs such as Excel, yet doesn't heal. Then she's also extremely good in PvE and outside of combat. It's not going to float everyone's boat, but calling her useless in PvP is shortsighted. She also is the only god with two AoE nukes on separate cooldowns. Play around with her spells on the test server. Nuke some people and see how she really feels. The improve bonus is just a leftover from extremely old code. I'm not sure why it's there, but it is. Maybe we could do something more useful with it such as reduce the faith requirement to non-priests? Not sure here, would be something to discuss. Magranon was set to be the primary combat god against Libila. Since Libila received significant changes with Scorn of Libila and Essence Drain being applied, Magranon was left with no in-combat sustain. The decision was made to apply a healing spell with a significant downside (trading your favor and stamina for health). Players familiar with combat should know that stamina is crucial during combat and trading it for health can sometimes be worse than leaving your health as-is. That said, I don't personally have any issues with applying some form of healing spell to Vynora. Just not sure what that might look like. ----- That covers all the comments so far that I wanted to address directly. Keep posting your thoughts and discussing the changes. I'm personally checking in every few hours to see what else was posted and the team is also looking through the thread. Huge thanks to the people posting up spell lists and spreadsheets with comparisons (see @Oblivionnreaverimgur album here and @Wargasmspreadsheet here) I was going to post up all the spell lists once it went to public testing but unfortunately I got hit by a storm. So again, thanks for taking up the slack and making the effort to inform the community.
  24. We've updated to Furthermore, a minor patch is being deployed to solve a few issues: Miscellaneous Repaired and re-implemented Armoury, with armour changes removed. This will bring back material modifiers, weapon statistics, and similar. Added new Wiki/Documentation to the Server tab, created by our CM Mashhiven. Significantly reduced the XYZ dimensions of the Battle Yoyo. It should now fit into more containers. Kyklops now have 80 fighting skill to make them function properly with DUSKombat. Uniques have been slightly adjusted to make them a little more difficult. Eternal Orb price reduced from 20 silver to 10 silver. Affinity Orbs no longer restock on traders. This is a temporary bandaid solution to a problem until a proper fix can be created. Fixed a bug where eternal reservoirs would not keep their fuel after a server restart. Fixed an issue where some creatures were exceptionally difficult in combat due to DUSKombat. Fixed a bug where titans and rare spawns would sometimes not die properly.