Flubb

Members
  • Content count

    46
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

20 Decent

About Flubb

  • Rank
    Villager
  1. The original suggestion included allowing these traps only within deed borders, perhaps one good middle ground for this is a deed setting that causes traps on deed and its perimeter to be triggered by animals. Makes traps work on freedom, but limited to deeds (Because everywhere else they remain useless), and doesn't block chaos villages to use traps against animals by separate server settings.
  2. And with the rejuvenated debate about banning account sales, I'm sure no one would see this as exploiting a problematic state of affairs for ones own profit. But this would address one concern, which is reputation attached to a name, and the suggestion ties into a greater question that I'd rather ask at this point: Would streamlined support of account sales help the issue altogether? Account sales entail risks and dangers that CCAB doesn't take any warranty for because it happens outside of their boundaries, so it's "fair play". Yet they "condone" it, which in this constellation seems akin to throwing the towel and retreating from something that should be your area of competence. But that's just my cynical interpretation, the important thing to take away for me is this: Rather than throwing gas into the fire of the status quo, CCAB should imho either - Just ban it and completely dissociate from account sales. or - Implement a streamlined ingame approach that takes away the risks, adds accountability, manages permissions properly. I have an idea for how it could work aswell, but even streamlining account sales will not eliminate player concerns about its impact "skill ecology" of Wurm, which is a debate all on its own. I'm bringing this up because obviously, a streamlined approach could also include the much needed name change when transferring accounts, it's a fair point that I have to give you here, but I'd rather see it as part of a package that is properly supported by the devs rather than saying "Hey, I don't care what you do, but if you happen to not get screwed over in the battlefield we deliberately let happen at our porch, why not give us some more money aswell while you're at it?". This is a bandaid on a flesh wound at best, and a terrible business practice at worst. There is a case to be made for name changes altogether, perhaps not just for people who bought an account, but I have to -1 a name change implemented in this fashion.
  3. Yes, that helps a lot. It's still jarringly hamfisted for large transfers though. On this note, bumping the thread because why is this not a thing yet?
  4. I'll try to muster up some time and help around. https://niarja.com/skill_compare/Flubb Also have 2 priests, Nahjo and Paaweelr, as listeners and 94+ favor batteries (Channeling is too low to make reliable enchants tho) I can do the full program for (Fine) Carpentry, Fletching, Bowyery (with some extra elbow grease, not quite 70 yet), Pottery, Blacksmithing, Masonry (Not stone cutting though.) Minor assistance in JS possible, everything else is too low to be of substantial help. I also have a few redundant rare tools that could go into the prize pool, since they aren't going into the market anyway.
  5. That's a perfectly defensible position, but I'm not erasing my suggestion because we're at obvious disagreement what is "wasteful" or "silly". I do however concede that steel nails and ribbons having some beneficial effect would in fact be better, no denying that, but I was making a suggestion with as simple development effort in mind as possible; keeping track of something having been built with steel components might be tricky with the material system as it currently is, as these components usually never influence the outcoming material of the product. Your suggestion of imping steel is also fine and I'd even support it, but that's a bit out of the scope of what I had in mind for this idea. You could make a new thread for that or I could quote that part in the OP as an alternative or additional suggestion. But let's adress that gripe of lacking incentive other than having a drain for crap steel so this thread has at least something productive going on: Just from the tip of my head I'd wager that steel components having a flat percuental bonus to effective QL is feasible enough, resulting in more QL added by attachment and better attachment chance. (Resulting QL is not very useful, however, as the item is usually impable or its QL doesn't matter. It'd just be a byproduct of higher effective QL) Another option, though I'm just spitballing this and I'm not sure if it's more or less silly, is justifying using less materials for the steel components as steel is wogically more sturdy than iron(That's code for "Let's not be too realistic"). This would create items that have 1) less weight and volume, allowing for better storage and 2) even less materials use, effectively stretching the iron stocks out further to reflect the extra effort for creating steel that you have correctly pointed out. I think with the joint bonus of reduced volume and weight, and in order to be not to wogical, the steel counterparts could be one third "thinner" than the iron version. (Both less weight and volume). That's a 50% boost in effective iron mass ontop of the 100% boost by steel production itself multiplicatively, resulting in in three times the amount of effective iron for building components. This would at least reflect the 3 rough stages of steel production: producing iron, producing coal, and combining both. It doesn't add up perfectly though because of how coal production works, where required actions are not that easily pinned down. (Because like metallurgy, coal making has a lot of RNG involved, which has also been subject to its share of griping here.)
  6. The emphasis was on "relatively rare", though I concede this may be a "local" problem and just my impression. I'm drowning in lead here, on the other hand. In either case, I'd prefer to use them for other things. Okay, but do you have any substantial, non-subjective reason why these things shouldn't be possible to be made of steel? There's always the possibility of making the classical iron ones if you feel that way.
  7. Bringing up wastefulness is a good point, though I have though I have to disagree to the point of turning the argument around; using relatively rare materials required for brass and bronze that could otherwise be used for transmutation liquids is immensely wasteful to me, which is why I stick to steel. In fact, speaking in raw mass, steel production doubles your cheap iron, which is good because ribbons eat tons of material if you're going to make a lot of them. And even if brass and bronze are more efficient xp/action-wise, you still end up with tons of cheap metal of some kind, so the "problem" in my premise isn't addressed by your answer at all... There could be "better", more elaborate additions to make low QL steel useful, sure, but I see no reason why this shouldn't be an avenue that can presumably be very easily implemented. EDIT: Checked the wiki, there are actually brass ribbons that could drain away the cheap skilling byproduct, but there's stil lthe issue with using lots of zinc which I'd rather use to kill all the clay tiles in my way.
  8. This is just a simple suggestion to add items like nails and ribbons to the list of items craftable from steel. These items could be used in lieu of their iron counterparts with the natural steel benefits like taking less damage as steel does (Less decay and less failed attachment damage), and it wouldn't leave aspiring metallurgists on a mountain of cheap steel that they'll need a contrived way of getting rid of. I've originally not suggested added benefits but taken the point that leaving the suggestion too small leaves no room for making cheap steel truly sexy again, so here are some things the steel components could do (without messing too deeply with the current material system and how decay and damage is accounted for): 1) Increased (effective) QL, resulting in better attachment chance and quality increase, perhaps 20% better QL to be in line with the 20% less damage. 2) Steel components use a third less material, being more lightweight and taking up less volume. This would also mean that (in a scenario with 100% creation chance for brevities sake) for building components steel is 300% efficient in iron use as opposed to making them directly from iron. (200% efficiency by steel which is one half coal, and another 150% by reduced weight of the building components). This reflects, at least approximately, the extra effort of making steel, which is 3 stages as opposed to directly mining and smelting iron in one stage. On that last note, please don't derail the topic with counter suggestions how to currently get rid of masses of cheap steel. I'm imaginative enough to come up with something myself, but it'd be just nicer to have the metallurgy grinding byproducts be useful for more general purposes.
  9. I was facetiously pointing out that part of your rebuttal where you reject the proposal of changing the status quo by saying "but look, it works! Kinda.", because that's the mindset that literally misses the point of QoL suggestions like this one and more or less was your initial reply to this thread. But yes, you did later say favoring another approach wth custom amounts instead, and that's the part I actually agreed with further on.
  10. There it is, the old "you can already do it, but in a needlessly contrived way" argument. If I may quote Zigozag: On a different note, I'd be perfectly happy with setting custom amounts via dialogue. If I may add something further to that, what do you guys think of QL of the jug determining the granularity of the measuring? Whereas 100QL can go down to setting individual grams(I reckon noone uses that anyway and most people would be happy with 5g granularity at most, which should be achievable by decent potters.), while 1QL could only measure whole kilograms? The curve in between these points are obviously matter of discussion and so are the end points, but I think it would do Wurms potters a bit justice to have QL have an actual use on some more of their products.
  11. I see, pretty much recycling the code for "shelves" again, presumably. It would certainly save the hassle with setting new volumes constantly, JUGgling liquids (I had to.) among containers via drag and drop across mutliple windows. Took me a moment to realize the benefit over a simple "pour" option that I spitballed in another thread, as this will remove the "Set volume"-madness" for odd volume numbers altogether, rather than making dealing with it just slightly easier (By adding an option to bypass drag and drop to move liquids from one container to another. You could probably "abuse" the existing Fill option but then you'd have to have all involved containers in your inventory and still expand them/open new windows). I can see some naysayers objecting that you could do this by making several measuring jugs as they exist now, by dedicating each to a certain volume, but that's quite a hack job and unless we get an option to pour a liquid containers content into another one without having several hundreds of windows open, I'd rather see this version of the jug which reduces the amount of windows drastically and streamlines what is otherwise an unneccesarily tedious process of arranging windows each time you cook. I think a simple Pour option would be an easy solution to remove the window madness to some extent, but this idea has its added benefits for sure, so +1.
  12. Interesting, would be even less of a hassle and would at least justify having to use the pesky container window. That's probably an idea for a new thread though, as I was just sticking to the general idea of adding QoL-options to (some) liquid containers in order to not go too offtopic.
  13. +1 might be a bit offtopic, but measuring jugs are similiarly annoying to use. What if measuring jugs (or perhaps all liquid containers) had not only a Fill option, but also a "Pour" option for the opposite process?
  14. I'm only concerned with how existing player god priests would be handled, as I have 2(Nahjo + Paaweelr). Will they default to an old god or can they choose a new good keeping all their faith? Probably stating the painfully obvious, but the transition will have to be (widely) lossless or the butthurt will be quite detrimental and possibly make people quit. Still, the concept is intruiging as a new game mechanism and deals with the whackyness of random spell lists that have griefed many people, so this should at least be discussed to some extent. One caveat is that Meditation is being reworked currently (So that'll take some time before the devs can entertain this idea properly) and there are some changes to Epic coming also, which may affect player gods or the ascension process. Don't quote me, I have nothing concrete on this right now, but depending on what the changes bring this idea may have to be reviewed aswell. But as the state of affairs are now, +1 from my side.