Sindusk

Members
  • Content Count

    904
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    36

Everything posted by Sindusk

  1. It seems like people are misunderstanding the suggestion. This does not suggest that players from South Freedom can transfer to North Freedom with their skills and currency. This does not suggest allowing transfers from Epic or have anything to do with Epic. The only effect that this would have at this time is allowing Northern Freedom accounts to move to Southern Freedom and keep their skills, but not transfer currency or items. The suggestion simply suggests doing similar with future servers as well.
  2. I missed a section of foraging and botanizing earlier. Your comment helped me find exactly where it was happening (in another class that I didn't even realize was important). It turns out that you do get a bonus for being nearby (or not near) certain tiles. You get a 1/2 modifier at 1 tile away, and 1/3 modifier at 2 tiles away. Some foraging modifiers: Wemp - no trees Cotton - wounded Raspberry & cucumber - hungry Lingonberry - near bush Hazelnut, orange, raspberry, and blueberry sprouts - near bush Rice - near water Some botanizing modifiers: Acorn - near oak Barley, lovage, nettles, parsley, rosemary, sage, sassafrass, wheat - wounded Woad - no trees Meeting the requirements does not guarantee the result, just improves the likelyhood. They do nothing directly. They apply a "bonus" roll to skill checks involving the weapon or shield. For the purposes of combat, this improves block chance (shield) and parry rate (weapon). The actual value by which it affects it is fairly minor. You can use the Fixed Bonus tool on grinder to see the difference. Put in your shield or weapon skill, then apply a bonus of 0 (low skill check from parent skill), up to 70 (high skill check from parent skill) and see the difference for yourself. It's worth noting that bonus has reduced effect as skill goes higher, up to no effect at 100 skill. I can't find anything in regards to this. I'd imagine it's something client-side since lighting is a client mechanic, and I'm not very good with the client side of Wurm.
  3. For clarity, this doesn't really cover Epic or any other server with different skill gain. Those need different solutions entirely. This is primarily targeted towards new servers that use 1x skill gain. Currency would not be a part of this transfer. Currency should be kept cluster-specific, as it is between Northern and Southern Freedom at the moment. The primary benefits on the consumer end here would be the ability to keep all their management on each cluster under one account. Players get to keep their preferred character name on all clusters, and keep their premium time to explore the entirety of Wurm. It's a little late for North Freedom since players had to create new accounts there... but this plan should help make future server launches more consumer-friendly. This is not a one time transfer. This is a permanent skill share between clusters. Comparing it to Epic doesn't quite serve justice, as Epic had so many other differences that made a skill transfer go sideways. This is a simple link between newer 1x servers to older 1x servers. No special formula, no different skilling methods, just the ability to move about the clusters as the player sees fit.
  4. Image Proposal (Green being one-directional skill transfers): Quite simply, allow players to build portals to transfer between the clusters of their choice. Similar to the PvP portal between Defiance and Harmony/Melody, or the Epic Portal between South Freedom and Epic. Create a network of one-directional skill transfers where newer cluster skills transfer to older clusters. When someone transfers from a newer cluster to an older cluster, any higher skills obtained on the new cluster will overwrite the old value. Example: You have 50 mining on South Freedom. You obtain 70 mining on North Freedom. Next time you transfer to South Freedom, your South Freedom mining will be 70. Now you have 70 mining on both servers. You get to 80 mining on South Freedom. If you transfer back to North Freedom, you will still have your previous 70 mining. What this encourages This encourages players to try new play styles on the newer clusters. If you have 90 weapon smithing on South Freedom, but you've never done farming, it encourages players to build up on North Freedom and create a massive farm, since it will transfer back later on. They can explore a new area and engage in a fresh economy without feeling like they're losing progress on their main account. Over time, players will be building a skilled "main cluster" character that they can then use to explore the old servers. Further into the future This also provides a foundation for launching additional new servers later down the line. In order to bring in new players, you need a fresh server. This can be easily shown through the history of server launches. Every time, this alienates the old player base, since they would need to start fresh and gain nothing back to their "main cluster" character if they choose to join the new server. Using one-directional skill transfers, they have a reason to go to the new cluster. Additionally, this opens up the option of launching "challenge" servers similar to Jackal, which will be removed after a certain period of time. By enabling skills to transfer back to the primary servers, players will no longer feel like they have to pick and choose between skilling where it will stay permanently versus engaging with new content.
  5. Can be seen on niarja here. The player count seems to be stuck at reporting 263, since Defiance is not reporting the correct number to other servers to update the stats.xml.
  6. Launching another 16x16 map is so incredibly shortsighted. While it's fine that some people want land of their own, it shouldn't be encouraged. Players should be encouraged to join active villages and be a part of the community. Beyond that, it's foolish to think that the current population will remain after another month or two. When the servers first launched, I consistently saw 5-10 players in my village online concurrently. Recently? It's more like 2-3. Local players has gone from ~20 to ~5. Combine that with the map presented, and the fact that quite a few people are already established on Harmony and Melody, you're launching a ghost town. I predict the new server will be very, very sparsely populated with less than 100 concurrent playing after the first week. This is a bad call.
  7. +1 The server was originally pitched with the idea that faith would not transfer. Players have built their characters around the idea that this would remain the case. All of a sudden, this mechanic is getting removed, causing the players to scramble to figure out how to adapt their character. This is causing players to switch kingdoms, switch faiths, priest or depriest. This change is incredibly anti-player (anti-consumer) and I can't see a reason why it can't be cancelled before it's too late.
  8. Evasion is the wrong word for the mechanic. The more accurate term is dodge. Armour only really affects your glance rates, DR, and movement speed. Indirectly, armour affects dodge since movement speed has an effect on dodge chance. Otherwise, dodge chance is related to the amount of weight you're carrying in relation to your maximum weight. The less you carry, the higher your dodge chance. Body control also plays a role here. I'm considering writing a document detailing the combat process more in-depth. If I do so, it will contain all relevant information about dodge. Upon initial reading, nearby tiles don't appear to have any effect. Foraging and botanizing appears to only be affected by the tile you're interacting with. Backpacks don't apply a CR penalty. This is documented in the initial post, where the spoiler has the full list of CR modifiers. You'll find all the answers you're looking for in this post.
  9. Okay so help me with the horse speed one. Should I just delete that whole section and we pretend that horse shoes and saddles don't matter on horses? Or should I replace it with updated information from WU which I have tested is accurate for as far as the 40QL shoes I have in-game? Is it safe that, since my testing backs the WU speed formula, that the formula is accurate? Should I add the speed calculations to the wiki?
  10. I didn't catch the post before the edit. You literally cannot increase a horses speed by 0.24kmh. The minimum threshold of speed increase is 0.72kmh. Speed also is not linear based on QL of shoes. The whole section is complete nonsense and I have in-game testing (Wurm Online, mind you) to confirm that it's nonsense. But I can't update it with the correct information, since it comes from WU. The solution is exactly as proposed: Add the WU data information, tag it with a banner, and then allow it to be presented as applicable. The wiki is currently enabling misinformation to be presented with no disclaimer. I'm proposing updating the information and adding a disclaimer. That's it.
  11. So instead of using data to root out old, outdated misinformation... you would prefer to guess that it's not applicable and leave the incorrect information there? The proposal is not to preach the WU source as gospel. It's to update information from years ago that is absolutely, 100%, without question wrong, and replace it with more updated information. I mean, the alternative, for example, would be to simply delete the aggressive fighting page entirely since none of that information is applicable to Wurm Online.
  12. A couple I know to be false but I cannot correct: Table of weapons - All crit chances for weapons are 5x higher than they should be. Trying to confirm this in-game would be a nightmare. Horse - Take one look at the "Speed Boosting" section. It's extremely unclear, and there is absolutely no way it's correct because those speed intervals literally don't exist. Traits are also incorrect about their actual affect on speed for example. I could change the wiki and give accurate information, but I'd have no in-game testing to back it up. Aggressive fighting - "higher damage is dealt (133% max) and two-handed weapon speed is increased by up to one second." All of that is basically incorrect. Actual weapon swing damage is equal between aggressive and normal stance, though other factors during aggressive stance can increase damage dealt. 133% is a number pulled out of a hat and has absolutely no relevance whatsoever to any actual aggressive fighting mechanic. Furthermore, no two handed weapon can get a full 1 second timer reduction in aggressive mode. It reduces swing timer by 10%. No weapon has a 10 second swing timer. The best you can do is -0.6 seconds on a 6 second weapon such as a huge axe. But hey, who are we data miners to question the knowledge of an edit from 2010. I'd love to change this, but unfortunately doing in-game testing to prove how aggressive stance works would be next to impossible due to the RNG of combat. Clicked "Random Article" a few times. Will list every single one I hit, without exception: Studded leather armour - "Studded leather armor has a mild evasion penalty." This is extremely vague and not entirely true. Firemaking - Information regarding how firemaking affects cleaning forge/oven ash QL is missing. GNU Free Documentation License - Correct. Taunting - Correct. Fishing reel -> Light fishing reel - Information regarding the difficulty differences between other components of the rods is missing. No comparison between the reels. A comparison table would be easy to make using WU data. These are obviously not major offenders, but they are missing information that could be filled using WU information. Studded leather is somewhat inaccurate and a case could be made to call it misleading.
  13. Wurm Unlimited has been out for nearly 5 years now. The community has a fairly good grasp on what is and is not different between the two games. At this point, it's fair to say that they are roughly 90% the same. Therefore, I'd like to make the following proposal: Allow Datamined Information Until Proven Inaccurate Allow the Wikipedia to have information data-mined from Wurm Unlimited. Create a new banner (like the stub banner) which allows players to be notified that the information on the page is data-mined. If the information is proven inaccurate in Wurm Online, change the banner so it's known that the information differs between WU and WO. This will create a clear message that anyone editing the page should not be using WU data-mined information. If something is data-mined from Unlimited, then it can be assumed correct until someone tests and proves it wrong in Wurm Online. This can be done through the talk page. Why Change? Because inaccurate information was added to the wiki years and years ago, which has been left there, misinforming players. Some of these were easy to test and change, such as the recent edits to the characteristics and fuel pages. The information that was overwritten was years and years old. Changing the policy on this would make it extremely easy to root out this misinformation across the wiki and replace it with more accurate ones. It would also open the doors to players finally explaining some of the more "wogic" aspects of the game. Pages such as volume are missing a brutal amount of information. It redirects to the container page which is then missing, yet again, a lot of information. In fact, quite a few of the numbers listed on the container page are simply incorrect. Trying to explain to a new player why a 24kg log doesn't fit into their cart but 100kg of iron ore does is extremely hard. It would be nice to have a wiki page that explains it more clearly, but that can't be done unless we allow WU data to explain how it functions. Wurmpedia should be used to help educate players on how the game works. Correct information should be presented, regardless of the source. Let's make a community effort to replace the baseless information from years ago with new, data-driven knowledge.
  14. I'm back, and come bearing gifts. I wanted to know how fast I could make my large cart using horse shoes. As such, I present the following table: The table makes the following assumptions: This is for large carts only, with 2 horses attached. Both horses have no traits. Saddles have no effect on hitched creature movement speed. Only shoes matter. Actual speeds may vary slightly due to how movement works. These values should be within 0.1kmh of what you see in-game. You might be wondering why I did total QL up to almost 3,000. Surely there's no way to get 365QL horse shoes, right? Well, technically correct, but other factors increase speed per horse shoe equipped: 1QL: +1QL 1 WoA or BotD: +1QL Rarity: +60QL per rarity From this, the best horse shoe possible (100QL, 109 WoA, Fantastic) is equivalent to 100 + 109 + 180 = 389QL for the purposes of calculating speed. With 8 of these equipped on untraited horses pulling a large cart, you would end up with a 22.3 kmh large cart. An additional (not) fun fact is that upgrading your shoes across the hitched horses may do nothing, if you don't improve them high enough. For example, going from 30QL shoes on every foot to 50QL shoes on every foot will grant no increased speed. With that, I'm open to new questions asked in this thread. If you're wondering about a complicated game mechanic, ask away and I'll do my best to answer it. I'll start with the two questions I did not answer above. A dioptra gains +1 maximum distance between the planner and helper. I don't see anything regarding range pole rarity. Skill level 40 allows you to parry while moving. Parry chance always increases with weapon skill, so 50 is not a "limit" so to speak. Higher skill with a weapon will always increase your parry chance. Swing speed also starts at 90% of the listed values, and increases up to 100% at 100 skill. Every 1 weapon skill point increases swing speed by 0.1%. If you're referring to weapon damage, then you are right. It decreases damage by 20% scaling linearly until you hit skill 50.
  15. Tests that were done: Setup 3 forges, side by side. All were 10QL for safety, though any difference under 30QL doesn't matter since all fires under 30QL burn at the same rate. Fuel Cap Proof Light all of them at the same time. Wait until the message "The fire burns with wild flames and still has much unburnt material." Fuel one forge with 2 tar (16 fuel). This will result in ~21-23kg of fuel. Fuel next forge with 2 tar and 2kg of non-birch wood (21 fuel). This will result in ~23-25kg of fuel. Fuel last forge with 3 tar (24 fuel). This will result in 30kg fuel no matter what, since it hits the cap. Forge one will start to expire first. Forge two will follow shortly after. The other forges will both be below "A few flames still dance on the fire but soon they too will die." before the third one hits "The fire burns with wild flames and still has much unburnt material." Message Fuel Proof The above proof shows we have a 30kg fuel cap on forges. So how long does that burn? Roughly 83.3 minutes if the forge is under 30QL. Can't find the exact logs I had when I was testing everything, but this should basically get the point across After that, it's just a matter of examining the fire as it expires and cross-referencing it with how much fuel it should have left.
  16. Tower chaining, if it's enabled (I think it is) will slow down that process dramatically.
  17. Games has extremely strict rules about post formatting and promotional material. If your account has more than 10% of your content linking to a specific site then the post gets auto-moderated and deleted. You can see the /r/Games rules here. Not saying I agree with it, just informing. The best course of action is to wait until launch day, link directly to the Steam page, and doing it from an active Reddit account. Alternatively, as mentioned in their rules, a advertisement on reddit is a possibility for CodeClub.
  18. They opted to go for a completely disconnected Wurm servers. It has no connection to the databases that exist for the current Wurm Online server. For that reason you cannot reserve an account name for example. It's also why it is technically not feasible (not impossible, just not feasible) to allow players to transfer their existing account information & name to the new cluster. While this has some advantages (cleaner databases, faster queries, etc.) it also will pose some issues down the line. If I were to create "Sindusk" on the new servers, what happens if they want to merge the servers? Is there now two "Sindusk" accounts? It's a weird choice to be sure, and it's a bit of a slap in the face for those who have a lot of existing premium on their accounts or plan to play on both new and old servers simultaneously (you have to pay premium twice).
  19. Interestingly enough, the majority of computation that happens on servers is due to everything being loaded constantly. Unlike other games where they do tricks in their open world to "simulate" areas that nobody is in, then load them when someone is within range, Wurm takes no such shortcuts. This results in every NPC, item, deed, tile, etc. being polled constantly. Trolls have to move. Bears need to have their hunger updated and AI adjusted based on if they're hungry. A wild cat could hunt down a rat in a corner of the world with nobody around, and the whole combat will be computed on the server. Actual players have a very, very low footprint in terms of server strain. Only when players begin pumping out tons of items and littering them in containers all around them do things get dicey. Ironically, bulk storage bins and food storage bins with tons of items take almost no processing power when on deed since nothing inside of them requires decay or polling. The servers were announced to be 4k. You wont see a laggy mess like Xanadu in the new cluster. I'd imagine that several thousand players can be connected to a Wurm server properly hosted at a datacenter and the server would be fine. The real problem comes when those players all meet up in the same area. If the render hasn't gotten some good performance upgrades since the last time I saw it, then you'll struggle to get decent FPS with hundreds of players in the same local unless you're on serious hardware. Besides, the new cluster will likely have the servers with a player limit (similar to the existing ones).
  20. All of these changes are positive improvements to existing state of PvP servers. However, a new server provides a unique opportunity to rework fundamental systems that have systemic impacts on how players approach the server. Many of these changes are focused at eliminating the gap between players who are highly skilled and newer accounts. When the new server started, this isn't the issue you'll be facing. Instead, problems will exist such as: Players zerging to the "winning" kingdom, since the rewards for roaming objectives are now higher. The zerg kingdom will advance faster due to higher quality of items (from the roaming expeditions). This creates a player number gap and gear gap between the larger kingdom and smaller kingdoms. Alts being used in an exploitative way. It's been a problem since forever, and even the players who are the most consistent "alt abusers" want to see it gone. The only reason they do it is because of how effective it is and the fact it's not disallowed. Raiding being incredibly frustrating and unrewarding. Players are going to store items in safe mines or simply log off an alt with their valuables. Raiding a deed is a slow, tedious process that can result in no reward or PvP activity even after spending hours battering the outer defenses. The slope changes help with this a bit, but 150 slope limit will just result in players making 2 tile walls at 150 each, resulting in the standard 300 anyway. Priests remaining undisputed kings of PvP. Changing this would require some significant changes, probably to combat itself. I just find it odd that such significant changes would benefit the existing PvP servers tremendously, but instead have been saved for the Steam launch where none of those problems will occur until months down the road.
  21. The biggest problem with Wurm combat (in PvE, at least) is that there's really no way to interact with the opponent. You walk up, target the creature, then stand there waiting for dicerolls to determine the outcome of the combat. The creature you're fighting wont be doing anything that will modify the outcome of the combat, nor can you make any action to swing it in your favor. The key, however, is to keep it "viable" to simply allow the fight to play out as it usually does, while giving the player tools to actually benefit their combat. Some people actually prefer the laid back combat style that currently exists. Turning too far into a MMORPG style combat system would be detrimental to some players. So the real answer is to simply add more options. Double down on special moves and make them actually impact NPC's in a way that matters. You can drain an NPC's stamina, food, and water... but none of that is really apparent in combat. You don't really know how, or even if, it's to your benefit. There's also no indication, through text or UI, when the target is out of food/water/stamina. All this combined creates a very low impact special move system. With more information, new tactics could arise which enable players to create interesting stories from combat. Imagine a scenario where a player who is incapable of taking a troll head on wants to fight it. They engage the fight, then use special moves to drain the troll of all their food. They run to safety and begin healing. The troll is now hungry, so it begins hunting. It tracks down a nearby brown bear and begins to fight it, with the intent of killing the bear and eating it to replenish it's food. Note that this is a mechanic that already exists in the game. The player then assists the bear in killing the troll. The troll is slain, and the bear is now wounded from the troll. The player is then able to finish off the bear and has resulted in slaying a troll and brown bear without being capable of fighting either one in head on combat. While I think everyone agrees that combat should be more visually appealing, the combat system is severely dated mechanically. I agree with most of the other comments here. The combat will be a major turn off for players approaching the game through Steam. It needs a facelift, but also a mechanical overhaul.
  22. If you're on a boat you cannot cast on another player directly to cure them. However, you're able to open up their character UI and target each wound with the cure spell instead. Ergo: a loophole. Imagine a new group of players comes to the PvP server and sees players using Cure Light on a boat during combat. Then they try it themselves (targeting the player 3D model) and get an error. If casting Cure spells is not a problem, why not let them cast on the player directly? Why force them into the UI? This change is a sloppy and punishes players in the future who never read the patch notes from April. Why is Venom ignoring glance rates so frowned upon? If you're giving the middle finger to everyone who owns a Venom weapon, you might as well try to articulate why instead of just saying "we made up our minds." Especially since this does not simply affect PvP servers - it affects players on Freedom as well.
  23. This doesn't answer the question as to why the change doesn't apply to enchants. It just makes the distinction between enchants and a spells. The question is why does there need to be a difference in the two healing methods? Is it really just because it's not limited to priests, and the nerf was targeted specifically at priests? I struggle to understand what makes enchants exempt from the change. It has the negative of making the system harder to understand than it already is. It creates an inconsistency where it's better to be healed via life transfer than by spells. Not a very compelling argument. If the goal is to make it so cure light/medium/heavy cannot be cast on vehicles, then simply add a check to the precondition method that ensures the player is not on a vehicle. If they are, decline the spell and give them a message saying "you cannot use this spell from a vehicle." It would achieve the same goal but be way more clear to the player. Instead, you've left a loophole in the game where players can use janky UI interactions to accomplish the exact thing you wanted to remove. You didn't solve the problem at all with this change. You just made it less interactive. Sure, I understand that's the goal. But how does the changes made to Tangleweave help here? People will be spamming spells more frequently now that less counterspell is available. There's so many better options available: Add spells to Fo or Vynora that give players a shield against incoming magic damage for a certain duration. This would require the opponent to dispel the shield then cast direct damage. Give shield bash a 100% chance to interrupt spell casts. Make special moves inhibit the target's ability to spell cast for a certain duration. It just feels like the way Tangleweave was nerfed didn't make a lot of sense. It felt instead like removing Tangleweave as a spell entirely, which just opens up a load of new problems that you're setting up to deal with in the near future. No opinion. ... So... you want more RNG in combat? Like... it did less damage then Frostbrand/Flaming Aura. Significantly less damage than the other enchants against almost all armor types. The compensation was that it felt better because of the increased accuracy. Now you want to backtrack and take away that increased accuracy? I mean I guess while we're at it you might as well just nerf Truehit into non-existence as well since that increases accuracy too. Nimbleness as well I guess. It just doesn't make sense. This was another method by which people could get more accurate hits and smooth the RNG in combat. If it's a problem for PvP, then introduce a PvP-specific adjustment to it. There's no reason to punish players who invested in a Venom weapon on Freedom because PvP players are using it. This is the one change that I am adamant should be reverted. Venom should be designed specifically around not having to deal with glance. If you need to nerf the damage, fine. But removing the only thing that made it good and enjoyable to use is unacceptable. No opinion. Tangleweave can remain at a several minute cooldown if you reduce the cast time back to 3 seconds. Granted, it would help in ensuring a large number of priests do not entirely shut down spell casting for a smaller force. Favor change doesn't make much difference because gems are a thing. Make Tangleweave effective, but require intelligent usage. Finally, please pick a different way to adjust Focused Will and the Cure spells. Don't make them require sifting through a character UI screen anymore. This is just another step back on what was previously progress.
  24. Wow. > Want to make the game less spell-spam. > Nerf the counter-spell. > ??? This makes literally no sense. If the goal was to make it less spell-spam, buff/improve Tangleweave. Don't nerf it. This change exacerbates the issue you're claiming to want to solve. Now people will be able to spell spam with indifference. Any spell with a cast time below 7 seconds is now unable to be countered. The cooldown change is fine to try. It prevents overwhelming forces from shutting down the effectiveness of priests on the other side. I can get behind that. The favor cost and cast time increase is overkill nerfs. So instead of balancing around people using spells on in-game models you're instead forcing them to open up the character menu and interact with user interfaces during combat instead of targeting players. This is immediately after the new UI changes where you're allowing dragging a 3D item on the ground into a nearby container. The change was made specifically so people could focus on the 3D world and their combat log to fight instead of having to sort through janky menus and sub-menus. It's one thing if it's too strong - tackle that aspect of it. However, this instead just reverts a QoL feature and creates an inconsistency due to the new UI changes. Why can you drag an item to a container in the world, but not cast a spell on a player in the world? That just makes the game less appealing to play. This completely ignores the fact that a moving vehicle with ping/lagg introduced can easily force a character menu shut at random intervals due to client-server desync. This is a direct nerf to anyone who plays on high ping, making it significantly more difficult for them to heal their allies. There's so many things wrong with this change and it would've been better to tackle it in literally any other way. Furthermore, healing resistance being adjusted on PvP is one thing. I was actually totally fine with healing resistance increasing faster on PvP servers since it was originally designed to prevent PvE exploits. However, now you're saying that it will work inconsistently between enchants and spells? Why would that be the case? It should affect everything equally. Life Transfer shouldn't get special treatment over Scorn of Libila or Light of Fo. This is just another asterisk to put on a mechanic in the game which serves no purpose. Clearly nobody thought about how this would affect people who actually enjoyed Venom as an enchant. The whole reason for Venom/poison to have no glance rate was because it feels better and reduces RNG during combat. Even though it was less damage, making sure that nothing could glance your attacks just felt good. No longer would you swing 5 times in a row and get glanced every time. You would hit for less, but hit more often. Now, it would be one thing if there was some problem where Venom was dealing the most damage and thus overpowered. However, that wasn't the case because the other enchants applied a significant damage bonus whereas Venom had none. You traded raw damage per hit for more consistent hits. So instead of keeping Venom feeling good for those who like it you just end up returning the one combat mechanic they were trying to avoid and shove it straight back in their face without warning. Nice. Anyone with a Venom weapon they invested in is probably quite upset, and rightfully so. This change is nonsense and should be reverted outright. Even adjusting Venom to have a 20% damage bonus to counteract would not remedy this change. A unique enchant which changed how combat felt in a positive way was nerfed to obsolete, and it wasn't even the best enchant.
  25. I agree that the combat system is poorly understood. However, I believe the reason is because it's an illusion of depth when in reality those adjustments to combat do almost nothing. Whether you aim for arm or legs doesn't matter much in PvE combat. It simply presents itself like it does. PvP is slightly different. More on topic, the combat system could definitely use an update. The problem becomes that basically nobody understands the combat system intimately enough to actually begin reworking it. Understanding the code that runs combat takes an extremely long time to comprehend. After comprehension, you would then need to identify the issues you're trying to solve and plan a course of change in order to improve it. With the other projects currently at work, I doubt anyone working on the game has time to tackle a combat overhaul.