Flubb

Members
  • Content Count

    744
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Flubb last won the day on August 18 2019

Flubb had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

742 Excellent

About Flubb

  • Rank
    Villager

Accounts

  • Acc1
    Flubb
  • Acc2
    Radrohn
  • Acc3
    Tulon

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. My penultimate goal on the new server is to build the highway network. Maybe get to be a decent carpenter again, too. I love your chosen theme and I always liked the look of underground cities. I'd ultimately live semi-nomadic now with sleeping bags being a thing, but the roads are hungry and I'll have a lot of mining to do to feed them with bricks, so I figure I may aswell help building up the initial place, crash in the common areas and help with on-deed stuff when I'm not out on the roads. And if I need more space or get in your hair too much, I can always make an offshoot somewhere in the mountain, but I'd prefer not to be a single man deed again to be honest. (Though a more tight knit alliance in a mountain would be just as fine.)
  2. But it does differ, so the pessimistic/optimistic(?) picture I'm painting is pretty valid because it hinges upon the slightest difference. Not that I think it will come to it because it's very unlikely to come to this, but how much traction does the Steam client (and I'm aware it's just another client, nothing to do with the servers) need to have over the legacy variant for you to start entertaining going steam-client only (with all servers still existing)? It's just a simple matter of weighing cost and utility. Is there really no ratio between legacy and steam clients where you would consider it at all? I'm not just trying to be a contrarian, or put you on the spot, nor am I against using Steam personally, I'm quite a fan of it actually. I would suggest, however, to entertain these notions carefully and diligently. It's part of managing expectations, and for one reason or another, expectations diverged heavily when it came to WU. I think it would be much more confidence inspiring to some critics here if you didn't turn a blind eye to such possibilities and tried to dismiss them with absolute promises of "never going to happen" without addressing the pitfalls fully. Or in another light: Is switching out the Steam authentication a one time code-tweak in the very same code repository that - ideally - never needs changing again and updates merely need to be pushed from the same repository into two different upstreams instead of one? If you can streamline (or steamline, if you will) the process to this point, I think it'd be much more realistic to say "we will never abandon either client" (because there is no continuous overhead that would be eliminated this way, so why even bother?) Which grazes one thing I was curious about: Will SteamWO utilize Steams update mechanisms, or just use it as a distribution platform and update via launcher the same way as the legacy client? From your reply I'd gather that it's the second option, which would be in line with keeping deployment differences to a minimum. At the same time, the Steam download servers are pretty powerful and I'm sure the new client would benefit a lot from the update speed it can provide.
  3. Deployment via Steam vs. the legacy way may differ though. They won't shut down the old servers, given their track record, I guess the concern would be that they ditch the "legacy client" though. In the very, very unlikely scenario that Steam users end up making up 99% of the playerbase and updating "the old way" is just an extra step not worth the time.
  4. if the reward is something also tailored to PvP and basically irrelevant to a PvE only character, why not. The draw of completionism or the inspiration of certain goals to think about is pretty harmless. But if it's something like the +5 cast power that is basically mandatory for a high end priest, or another maximum sleep bonus hour, where people who have and always will have zero interest in PvP will be disadvantaged or "incomplete" for not taking the "bait" and latching onto it: hard pass. Maybe another affinity token, as those were classically "PvP only", but affinities are also obtainable via grinding now, so strictly speaking, it's nothing PvE players would be gatekept out of. I do want to comment on the apparent underlying premise here that PvP and PvE are somehow "parallel" worlds though. PvP is more like PvPvE in this game, PvE being a subset of it. A "reduced" version, so to say. (Except for some features that have been made PvE-Exclusive, but those are rare, relatively new, and afaik irrelevant to this discussion unless there was some goal about catseyes). The point I'm making is that PvP players have - theoretically - just as much access to the current journal as PvE players, there's an asymmetry in design there as the same could not be said vice versa about a "PvP Journal". Granted, some goals like the rifts are heavily tipped in favor of PvE-only servers, as they are rarely, if ever, being done on PvP servers from what I heard? Perhaps rather than devising a completely new journal for PvP, add some PvP "alternative goals" for things like 100 rifts to alleviate said practical discrepancy? 100 Rifts are terrible even in PvE, so that would surely gain some attraction aswell. And I'm sure there are other goals that could use a PvP alternative for similar reasons.
  5. Gotta agree with @Cipacadrinho, this sentence alone is a nail in the coffin for the meta this would induce. Bob doesn't want to do tailoring at the moment, period. Valrei missions are somewhat different because you do these for the sleep bonus (mostly not worth the effort) or karma (for the few who actually need it regularly, which is why they are so seldom done on freedom.) For more concrete criticism, I think dailies are way too fast-tacted for a slow game like Wurm. Even if you are able to accept multiple quests at a time, you need to commit fully to finishing the quest or else they will probably stack up. Might have to dedicate a whole playsession to a quest the moment you accept it, or suffer the skill gain freeze as long as you let your "real" goals distract you, which may involve the skill you have an active quest for, but not the way the quest prescribes. I'm playing devil's advocate of course, as I often do, but if this would come close to panning out like this, I feel a bit queasy about the concept. I like the complex quest idea in your last post though....remove the skill gain freeze, and just assign one quest for all skills and a new one when one is done. It may be "only" a matter of framing, but to me this would feel more like something optional, like "if you're going to grind this, here's one way for it", or even give you a wide catalogue of things to undertake when you have some downtime and no idea what to do. All the while, the vastness of options would clearly suggest that not everything needs to be done at a time. Quests without any progress (if it is trackable at all) could be replaced within a week so you aren't stuck with quests that you are sure you don't want to do at all. Below I had typed out a proposal for a more open ended quest system, but I feel it's going a bit far in "salvaging" the core idea and too involved, after writing the above following my counter proposal to the OP, so feel free to ignore it.
  6. 23 + lvl * 0.77 is considered to be the softcap. Edit: Just realized this is the WU subforum, not sure if there's a difference though afaik the skilling system is different, not the imping mechanisms.
  7. Given the content that was added since OP: Actual coconuts from the palm trees please, not whatever abominations are currently created in wurmian kitchens as a substitute.
  8. @elentariwhy not use both and award hide from a fixed, but reasonably large pool, weighted by combat performance? High end accounts will just be seen as hide printers if their award is open ended, and may be preferred so strongly that people start vetting the characters that are allowed to participate in the fight, which isn't very open. Otherwise, I think this idea exactly hits the middle ground needed here. OP doesn't want hides per se after all, just better community cohesion. So no harm done if some more people are invited to be allowed to wail at the dragon in futility. And keeping the drop amount the same as it is now, just distributing it differently, doesn't affect its value either in the grand scheme.
  9. I think trying to fully automate this from beginning to end is just overcomplicating things and making them needlessly inflexible. Unless your players have the kind of instantaneous and strictly player bound inventory system that other MMOs have, Auction houses don't really work out so easily because of the logistics attached to transferring items. The advantage that this system, and an auction house for that matter, would bring is simply an asynchronous communication pattern - I think that would be needed because not everyone wants to run off to the forums for every little thing for several reasons. Like Kelody said, a simple "order board" would serve this game just fine, it would hit the sweet spot between the trade chat that is constantly flooded with unfiltered messages about selling drake armor where you need to be actually online to see the demand and supply, and the forum, which is an extra account to set up and poses a rather permanent platform that lends itself more to bigger sales being done, being rather uninviting towards anything but the dominating "market meta". For what it's worth, a work/order board that you can search for specific items on using filters would be relatively easy to design and implement as opposed to what OP proposes, but can still act as a foundation for an automated system later an should it ever become worthwhile to make that effort.
  10. I believe Sinduk had a pretty compelling implementation of terrain decay as a WU mod, which I imagine should be easy to transfer to WO if not outright add it. Likely not on the existing servers though, people are used to the static nature of the terrain there. But I'd love to see it on the "steam server", it's an all new cluster anyway, if it could just be enabled there and disabled everywhere else; it would make the new cluster a bit more distinct and give the "fresh server experience" it offers over the existing clusters a bit more longevity. Alas, even a partially enabled feature can cause diverging requirements on code, and the plan is to basically just release the same game with a new server and client, so I don't see it happening is a distinct Steam server feature either. Which is a shame because deed ruins could be handled so much better with this, alongside "ruin structures" that could spawn from buildings decaying.
  11. Yep, the wrong date is definitely going to tip them off as Wurm being dated. Not the screenshots or anything.
  12. That's a pretty unfair and uncharitable interpretation imho. What I see people being "afraid" of is maintenance becoming a sysyphean workload that overtly detracts from the rest of the game. That's why I spitballed that if (if, because I actually agree with the rest mostly) damage would be increased, so would improvement rates so one would roughly maintain just as much as they do now, just in more, smaller sessions. After writing that, however, I thought of my own mining sessions went and wipeout absolutely has a point. Breaking maintenance down into more smaller sessions will, depending on tool usage and location, inevitably create an overhead of running back and forth between forge and work station. Etherdrifter and wipeout also raised a fair point with how newbies are affected by this, and why this aspect would upset the "rich" or the veterans because their assets are "under attack" is beyond me. The primary "investment" that people are worried about is their continuous investment of time, not the investment of silvers that happened in the past. It feels like you're wrongly asserting which object is being protected because you framed the question as one of economic matter and view the answers as such. But the general sentiment I get from the thread is that the OP question is widely considered a malformed one, as people are rejecting its implicit premise. Perhaps it's more conducive to take a step back and ask instead: "Should the economy be regulated via decay and damage at all?" I think for decay we have a diffuse "Eh, sure". For damage, it's a resounding "no". Now, I could put the devil horns back on and ask what gameplay relevance item damage has if its economic implication has to be discarded entirely (artificially, as you would perhaps say, and it certainly would be arbitrary to delineate this in such a black and white manner), but that's probably taking the pondering a bit far. But I think it's fair to say that, while item damage certainly has economic implications, item lifetime, management and maintenance requirements have different implications aswell that affect the game far more consistently and with greater gravity than the odd trade being done based on its effect, and that their importance easily overshadows the meaning of item damage in economic terms.
  13. Totally on your side there. Hence I brainstormed something that doesn't just punitively increase damage so you'll better run off to a crafter (and that will only pretty much benefit the top dogs of that branch of crafting). It's more of a paradigm shift to short lived but more easily made tools, giving more opportunities for trade, not making it essentially the better option. It would also shift away from spending hours at a time just for maintenance and break it up in more, shorter sessions of maintenance, because being tied to the forge or workshops for possibly several playsessions could be quite a drag. I agree that any changes should benefit the economy organically and more as a side effect. That doesn't mean we cannot explicitly humour the search for options that would have this side effect, though. Yet as OP said, there's lots to unpack in my previous rambling, so it may (will likely) be horrid to get it right in implementation or not even work out the way as described.
  14. If damage rates were to be increased, I think so are the improvement rates. This is a doubled edged sword. People would not have to spend as much time maintaining equipment, which in market terms will make a high QL piece cheaper. This may seem bad for the crafter at first, but mind that they wouldn't have to spend as much time and materials, so not a big loss there if tweaked correctly. On the other hand, the tools are more affordable, and with increased damage, picking up a new, more affordable tool from a crafter instead of doing maintenance may become a more lucrative alternative. Similarly, make enchants less RNG based and give channelling some bloody meaning as a skill...but up the enchant decay aswell, as that will make high enchants easier for a skilled priest. Similar effect as mentioned before. My general gist is that hamfisting more chores in won't neccessarily make people spend more money, and I don't think that should be the goal. Rather, create incentives for more, smaller scale trades to be done, causing some more circulation of ingame funds in little increments. Basically trading more often for pocket changes, rather than seeing the relatively rare sale of a good tool for "big money". Wether the total money being spent increases by this is written in the stars, and like I said, not my goal either. I think a healthy economy's mark is not exactly that much money is being spent, but that it is being regularly spent and somewhat evenly among its participants in both directions. (But fully satisfying the latter constraint is a bigger and different conversation.) And I'm putting "big money" in quotes because the rampant market saturation has killed big money from tool trade. Perhaps a faster circulation of both funds and wares could take care of that, too. I like @Jore's idea as a second layer to this to ensure that equipment actually circulates and has a lifespan, though I have to say just on its own, put into the game as it is now, it would feel more like a looming apocalypse. Especially with some tools having sentimental value. The signature of an (online) friend on it, or just having any other kind of history with it. Putting a deadline on those will upset a few people. For these cases, I think it'd be fine to let priests mend items even at their very core, restoring even the secondary damage value. It's magic after all. This would have to be more expensive in such a way that it's only worth it for rares+, items with imbues (given that they won't decay faster. that would probably be unreasonable seeing as we aren't talking about making bloods more available, too) or said sentimental value. Keep in mind that I'm spitballing these ideas at an advanced hour and I should seriously be sleeping right now, so I may even get some qualitative aspects wrong here or can't be bothered to think it entirely through, so pick this apart as you like.
  15. Are you sure it wasn't the other way around? Also, a muzzle would stop a creature from biting, but horses usually kick you to attack? I know there's wogic and suspension of disbelief, but that'd feel like kind of a stretch and more of a band-aid solution. A more complete answer to this seems to be a system for actual domestication, giving animal taming some more depth and use, and perhaps some synergy with animal husbandry by breeding incrementally tamer generations of wild animals.