Monokles

I agree with that AoE healing spells could use an overhaul, not gonna comment on your numbers since I haven't tested them rigorously, though. What I don't see is why Lib would need focused will if she has drain health? Just buff drain health a bit so it actually does something (I haven't seen it heal much more than 3-4 dmg on Defiance, which frankly is less than mycelium). People crying about nerfing drain health are silly, the main reason people cast it in combat these days is just to get a quick hurting status off, not actually to heal themselves. Which isn't all that much considering you can do the same more effectively through a number of different means too (e.g. for horses, archery,or other single target damage spells etc). Pretty much the only thing drain health has going for it is it's short cast timer. Just as a note to your suggestion of single-target spells needing longer timers: rotting gut is already 10 seconds. Worm brains is 15 seconds. It's only the WL gods that have <10sec damage spells. Doesn't stop us from casting them often enough anyway. So while I appreciate the idea I don't think this would change much at all. Not that I have a better idea apart from just reducing the damage single target spells do in general (and then perhaps nerfing resistance a bit). Oh, also I disagree with single-target healing on vehicles, since it'd be too easy to keep a captain healed.

I think you misunderstand me, if one priest casts <damage spell>, then all other damage spells will suffer from spell resistance afterwards. It doesn't matter if it's (in Lib's case) worm brains -> rotting gut, pain rain, or whatever. So, unless WL spell resistances don't stack (do they?), I don't see the problem. As for priests being a straight upgrade, remember that Lib/Mag are combat-focused religions, so it makes sense for them to add a whole range of capabilities in a fight. You're never going to balance that so that a crafter <-> priest is a fair 1v1. I repeat, fixing resistances would go a decent ways to supporting groups with fewer priests that are up against a larger priest force, as well as increasing the ways in which casts can be interrupted (or making them easier). IMO, start with that, then observe, and if it turns out it's not working at all, only then start looking at ways to further limit priest play styles.

Right, try casting Fireheart twice in a row, if the resistance is anything like the one that ALL BL damaging spells share, your second cast will only do like 20% damage compared to the first one. Certain gods have combat-specialized priests, how does a CR nerf fit in with that at all? Just make it so that changing equipment interrupts actions (so you can't take off armor just before a cast goes off), and fix some AoE spells. >Limiting priests to one-handers only This would effectively make priests useless for killing horses, as well as severely impact the "gankability" that priests have because their damage output will drop significantly. "But muh spells" ----> Again, resistances should take care of that, not to mention that they require a lot of favor and carrying gems around is expensive, and finally make you a sitting duck for 10+ seconds, unable to attack and with a CR nerf (action bar in combat). -20% damage resistance nerf Was this as a standalone or in conjunction with limiting priests to cloth/leather? I'm not sure what this is supposed to solve at all. While we're going down that route, what exactly is the problem with priests right now? The main thing I see that's causing problems is that BL have many more priests than other kingdoms, and can thus get many more AoE heals off in a given time period. An easy counter would be to actually fix resistances so they work properly. Not like how healing resistance now barely affects AoE healing, but messes up LT and drain health.

Overall I really like the changes proposed in here, although I do agree with most people that already replied that something more needs to be done to tackle skillgain inequalities between clusters. Additionally, I recently realized (completely unrelated to some incident where enemy players suicided the moment they left local and then recalled their corpse) that the recall corpse ability still has only a 5 minute delay, whereas most fights last well over 5 minutes, and you can easily add another 10 minutes to that for locating corpses and looting them afterwards. This means that for most skirmishes, players are actually able to recall their corpse before the battle is over and the corpse has been looted. In the past we've had a number of skirmishes with a surprisingly low turnout on enemy loot, and ended up attributing it to mag's passive res bonus, but in hindsight this is probably what happened. I would strongly recommend disabling the spell altogether or adding a nice 30+ minute delay to prevent it interfering with PvP business.

Heal resistance doesn't seem to work for scorn of lib and light of fo, it can be cast back to back and fully heal the same person. Should also take a look on how much scorn is healing in total when there's a lot of enemies that can be hit since it increases the wounds healed per enemy hit. What do the good folk in here think about partial loot? Perhaps drop a set amount of items based on the total value of items and weight, so moonmetal equipment and uniques, rare equipment etc have a high chance of dropping while things which usually just end up in a stockpile like regular armor and weapons only drop partially. And traditional hota like And depots, perhaps a depot that moves every time similar to the current hota system except it releases a beam like the white and blacklight 24 hours before it spawns. Maybe even a battleground type event that pve can join too, portal to a temporary server with capture the flag. A chance to gain the challenge items and with its own ranking system, even if it's not in the spirit of wurm it would be fun. F. U. N. Could be interesting to test minedoors not opening again, assuming they're easier to bash and possible to lockpick. At the end of the day, anything that gives incentives to make it more fun or rewarding to go out and pvp is good because at the current state there's not much to pvp except pvp itself, and it doesn't seem that pvp by itself is lucrative for enough people right now. Epic had its valrei system with items and godhood, chaos had its profit motive with selling moonmetals and kingdom cosmetics to freedom etc. Sponsored by

Uhm. I'm not sure if you even bothered to read the post, this is completely unrelated to the topic. We're saying that PvP needs more incentives to keep people there instead of making it objectively more efficient to play on freedom and cross over to PvP. We're not asking for PvP and PvE economies to be linked (god no), we're not asking for easy money on PvP. We're asking to give people incentives to play there. Right now, if I wanted to minmax the hell out of things (which quite a few PvPers like to do), I'd play on PvE as a vyn follower with Path of Knowledge, grind all my skills up there, and only cross over to PvP for meditation/prayer/lockpicking timers. Yes, exactly this! The crossing between servers removed almost all reasons for people to be on PvP servers with any persistence. This exact thing is what killed the Epic population.

+1 on more incentives. If things continue like this before too long we'll have entire deeds playing on Freedom again and only crossing over if they're being sieged much like how it was on Epic. Perhaps, yeah, penalties might not be the solution, but incentives could be, as is part of the topic title even. What do you think could be a good incentive Sme? Enlighten us. I have trouble believing you don't see the drain of people moving to PvE as a problem for PvP. IMHO, hunting should definitely be on the top of that list, PvP is all about risk so higher mob rates are not gonna hurt anyone, and might persuade some PvErs who want to grind wep skill or butchering. I also particularly like the slightly higher skillgain solution. Epic at its prime had a lot of PvErs playing, which Defiance can also have really. There's the starter zones and even outside of them you can play in relative peace if you don't build on the frontlines and use some simple common sense like not going AFK off-deed and not bringing unrelated tools if you are off-deed.

The current situation is that NFI PvE is so privileged with their high rite rates and sick economy that even a lot of PvPers are choosing to play on PvE just because it's that much better to grind skills on and get money. Which from my point of view is the start of a downwards spiral much like what happened to Epic when this one-way skill transfer was implemented -- even people who want to/would play on PvP, opt to play on PvE instead because it is objectively better for skill grinding and other factors. They cross over with an attitude of "It's fine, I'll just cross back to PvP when there's a fight about to happen!". However, because every kingdom has a group that leaves PvP like this, the odds of a fight happening are drastically decreased because of fewer players that are out roaming etc. So no, a big fat -1, if anything PvP needs /more/ incentives to play there, such as custom character-bound skins that drop as fight rewards, which of course should cross over to PvE, so that PvErs might feel there's something to be gained out of PvP after all.

Why not actually put some effort in treating the cause instead of symptoms and just not reset the combat window when embarking vehicles? Granted, this will still leave the mechanic where you can use a pet to "jump" out of melee range, and that should be adressed, but I feel like all of the above suggestions are just band-aids to a fundamentally broken interaction between mount code and combat code. If you disallow mounting in combat, it will simply resurface in any other combat that involves vehicles, and I doubt many would be a fan of not allowing people to hop on a boat while in combat. So, instead of a band-aid I urge devs to fix the cause instead, and then apply another mechanic to reduce utility of embark jumping, such as reducing disembark range to 1 tile for living pets other than a horse.

I've noticed that ocassionally, when logging out off deed, I run into a weird logoff bug. So far it has only happened after I've had enemies in local, but I haven't specifically tested for it without. Expected: I've checked my /lotime to be 300 seconds, so I expect to lose link upon the closing of my client, and leave world in /lotime seconds. Actual behavior: Nobody in alliance or friends list sees me lose link, until /lotime seconds after I closed my client. Then the lost link status remains for another /lotime seconds before leaving world.

Nobody in BL knew of that bug, to my knowledge, and I can confirm that at least the priests in our village have just done the good old link + grind on sb thing that has been in this game forever. This pretty much makes linking useless for anything but rites.. I don't understand why it was suddenly deemed a necessary change, out of the blue too so people who just invested in battery priest alts get screwed over. What is this fix supposed to solve? Players with bigger wallets having an unfair advantage over others? I honestly think battery alts are a low priority in that department.

These embody the spirit of Wurm so much better indeed, in my opinion. Great (likely) picks. Very happy they didn't end up picking Triumph either. However, because this is the forum, some (g)rumbling is in order: I feel that Dissonance and Harmony are more coherent, in my unhumbly biased opinion . Not so much out of Etymological reasons but rather because of semantics.

Wow.. How are we going to abbreviate rumble? "I'm portalling to rum" "I'm going to rub"

Thanks a lot for the great work you're putting in! I want to offer some feedback on the raid windows as they're something I'm rather concerned about. Firstly, I feel like you're overestimating how fast a group can mine into a reinforced mine, even when you have exact knowledge of its location. Let's say the two deeds are 50 tiles apart, then there is absolutely no way that raiders will not pop local at both deeds when they attempt to ride up to this connecting mine. Then they'll need to dig to rock and subsequently mine some tiles + smash a reinforced tile before they're in. In the meantime, all the defenders have to do is hop on a wagon with an alt and ride 50 tiles through a tunnel. Bonus points if it's 3 deeds connected in a triangle and you're gonna have to make a guess as to which tunnel is being used. And this is assuming that the wagon isn't already in an unraidable deed because the windows will tell defenders exactly where to keep their wagons safe. Secondly, I think the raid windows you proposed are rather short.When we were raiding enemy capitals and other big deeds back in 2012 / 2013, raiding took well over 10 hours, even if we managed to catch a deed at a time when there were no defenders online. At the time, deeds could have high dirtwalls and so on, sure. But, getting in was rarely the biggest time sink. Even for those deeds with 800+ slope, what took the longest was going through the actual deed, breaking into houses we thought had valuable loot, breaking into the deed's vault (which was often strongwalled at the time of getting there). Moving the loot out of there and so on. Even when Epic was at its most active, proper raids were rare, in the order of 1-2 a year. They took weeks or sometimes months to prepare. I think 8 hours is really pushing it. It might be true that defenses cannot be as strong now, but I feel that that was rarely an issue. Also, since you mention lock picking will be possible outside raid windows. How about draining? I don't think it's that hard to summon 5 characters in alliance willing to be in some random other deed for a bit. Just take 5 priest alts / batteries / storage alts and /vinvite them remotely, while they can physically remain in their original deeds. It's not a very steep requirement really.

For those opposed to having to grind certain skills twice, consider that with the recent changes to Epic, players tend to play on freedom and only cross over to Epic when there's some PvP action happening. This behavior introduced a vicious circle where there's barely anyone on Epic to initiate pvp with to begin with, further reducing the reason to cross over. I think it's pretty damn important to prevent something like that from happening with the new PvP server. Having something like Epic portals to cross over between the two new servers already allows people to "teleport" in on demand when there's a PvP situation happening, effectively reducing the long-term reasons to actively play on the pvp server to deed maintenance and the odd armor crafting session. This makes clear the need for some other incentives. I think the few skills that currently don't transfer are a good start, but I think that either it should be taken even further (meditating and faith barely require presence, and fighting is a 1-week investment) , or an alternative reason for players to actively play on the pvp server if they intend to fight there as well should exist. Some other random ideas are: Simply only allow skills to sync once a year (quite drastic), Introduce a 1-2 hour significant skill debuff upon crossing (think 50% skillgain, and 50% effective skill for combat-skills and 75% for others). The former might be a bit too drastic, but I tink the latter could at least combat the opportunistic server crossing syndrome if tweaked right, although I'm not sure if it when deployed alone would be enough.