Flubb

Members
  • Content count

    28
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Decent

About Flubb

  • Rank
    Villager
  1. Your main motivation seems to avoid drama, but just trying to put a veil of silence on things doesn't help anything and doesn't address the underlying problem why there's drama to begin with. I agree that hogging the uniques isn't optimal, regardless of wether dedicated hunter groups or random people do it, but with the current system it is what it is, with or without announcement. You wanna make sure noone else takes it when you're off your wurm schedule, so I agree somewhat with Aeryck here, there is a distinct lack of incentive to share the creatures to the public. (Although I don't understand why it's not done more on Freedom; if you've deeded over the pen noone can actually take it away, but the public could go into local to at least get some blood? That is, IF you deeded over it, this implies another problem with the current "free for all" approach...)
  2. Some rares like crates are indeed useless, definite +1 for more variety in rare boni. However, the examples given are quite "powerful", remember that a rare tool for instance does as litle as increase the QL by 1 point. Something turning rare is something to be "nice to have", but not completely item altering. Also, you probably don't want to start a discussion about the sleep bonus beds give. it's one that has been had many times before if you want to search for it in the forums.
  3. They're from the Harry Potter franchise...which naturally has jack diddly to do with Wurm. Ironically Hufflepuff is the one house noone gives a crap about.
  4. Involving ropes into climbing could bear some interesting avenues for surface mining steep areas aswell, although it's probably digressing from the original suggestion. May need some work on the details as I see multiple ideas floating around here but some more sophisticaed means to get around in these steep areas would definitely be nice. +1
  5. I can ultimately only speak for myself, but I doubt people here are against adding more "value"(Which isn't strictly in the shape of coins) to skills. It's the direct tie to the monetary system that is clearly jumping the shark, because the implementation will obviously require ludicrously contrived new mechanics and items to achieve that goal. Hence I maintain that the rather borked "useless" skills have their existing mechanics reviewed and tweaked and worry about their market viabilty second. This is a sandbox game first, and trading is just a part of it.
  6. I agree that the range of skills are quite inconsistent in their usefulness and especially their mechanics, picking up your fishing example: I have a pretty decent rod, even rare, willow, 70+ fishing skill, I still get highly varied fish qualities. Same goes for metallurgy as I heard. Coal making is also quite inconistent compared to other skills like farming where you are pretty much guaranteed a certain quality. These skills are usually frustrating to pursue at all, and this should really be addressed. These inconsistent skills aren't entirely uncontroversial, but I think a somewhat healither market could emerge from "fixing" them. Selling high QL alloys for instance could become a better avenue for making money; right now I rarely ever see anyone trying to sell good brass or bronze because it's apperantly (I'm taking this view from impressions on the forum and the ingame chat about this topic and might be wrong) too much of a pain to come by even for dedicated metallurgists. On the other hand...brass and bronze are only needed for niche things and might not be worth trying to offer one way or another. High QL fish could be provided consistenly to cooks from people willing to dedicate the time to grinding fishing and having their characters not do much else, sure, would be nice to see more of that, but how financially viable do you expect this to be? I'll -1 this with a counter proposal: Fix the inconsistencies of product QL among the wide range of skill lists, as some of them seem to be arbitrarily more varied than others. Then see if a healither market emerges as a natural consequence, but don't jump the shark by introducing completely new items, mechanics and concepts to tilt the whole market in favor of skills that will ultimately never be as useful as others in terms of marketability. There is a case to be made about consistency, even in terms of improving market dynamics, but OPs demand in the title alone is one hell of a thing to ask for. My dream was to be a corpse retriever for people who died falling down cliffs. Nerf karma now!
  7. I was so frustrated with having to mark my special fishing spot with a dedicated boat...why didn't I think of this. Big +1
  8. I'm don't really want to inject my opinion on this here because that's what the poll's for, but wouldn't it make sense to differentiate between utensils and ingredients for the question? The drawback with rare ingredients seems to be that it's nigh impossible, if not at least completely unreliable for reproducing a good affinity you happened to find(which is why I don't cook with rare ingredients at all), while utensils basically stay forever unless you let them rot away, allowing for consistently reproducing affinities in them. I'm don't intend to spark a discussion here either; the poll is up as it is and will appearantly not be the last word anyway. I'm just wondering if that thought hadn't occured or (more likely) why it was dismissed? Yes, and now it's a bigger issue because people who originally opted out of having their known affinities changed by not switching to the new system would get them ruffled a bit anyway if rarity was removed, because it would affect both systems.
  9. There's definitely room for improvement as to how we can assist new players, however, the idea of buffing up start deeds like that seems overkill to me, and not only because of what Retrograde said. As this ends up being a community effort either way, as in needing volunteers, I think it's reasonable to approach this with small steps and make bringing in newbies better for both sides in the confines of the current system, rather than completely changing it and altering the fundamental experience of Wurm. This means: It's on us to make this work first, the devs second. I know this isn't how a game should work but it's a very community driven game and given the start of this paragraph, I think it's a fair assessment. What I find "dangerous" about the OP suggestion is how fundamentally different life outside of the starter deeds may seem afterwards, completely taking the new settlers-to-be aback. Designing your game's first impression to appeal better only works if the remaining experience stays somewhat consistent with it, and bustling towns are not something that strikes me as very common. But this is me speaking as a Xanadian. What I also see as a problem from this perspective is the limited mobility of new players. Your ways to get around are: Walking for hours on end(maybe riding a cow for less than hours - but still hours), one village teleport that might bring you some place you don't like, and suiciding. (Which one will rightfully think is bollocks.) That's just me speaking and may be entirely subjective, especially loaded with some "experience" in trying to take in new players, but I'd be a lot less relucant to bring in newbies on my own if I knew that I won't have to either 1) make them walk about an hour from Whitefay over a dangerous highway full of trolls, which I know most people will just "TL;DW" and quit the game. 2) dedicate said hour to pick them up from Whitefay to find they'll just quit the game anyway. 2) make them blow their only village teleport on my desolate refuge that does have accomodations and workshops to start but noone but me around playing. So they just quit without a word. That's something I'll adress in a second once the technical stuff is out of the way. Lifting some restrictions on joining, leaving and teleporting to deeds (even if just temporarily up until X weeks playtime, or as a newbie buff like the ones that already exist) will benefit the newbies' chance to explore the game before dedicating to one place and take some burden off the mayors to worry about scaring off players or having some small shack built somewhere off the deed because the newbie decided overnight to strike out on their own after all. I may seem petty and territorial saying this with all the land mass Xanadu has to offer, but that's exactly the point: I don't to bring people in if they end up making cheap shacks all around my deed where I made some serious landscaping efforts not only on deed, but also for infrastructure all around, when there's so much more space to build but they have no good chance to get there without making substantial efforts that you cannot reasonably expect from ANYONE who isn't even deicded on dedicating time on this game yet. Whew, that was a sentence. TL;DR: Make it easier for newbies to explore the actual settlement options and deed offers so mayors don't have to worry that much about taking them in. Regarding theft and vandalism: Permission management. Lock your valuable stuff away and you're fine, but there have been other suggestions like chaining tools to workstations like forges which would make sense to include into this discussion. The current system allows you to protect your treasured belongings for most intents and purposes tho. Vandalism that happens off deed is a concern that I share and mentioned before but I also believe it would be less of a problem if just sticking around wasn't the path of least resistance by such a large margin. While we're at it, there's another point I want to entertain: How DO you introduce someone into the game without scaring them off and have them leave over night without a word? Is the communtiy having any discussion about this, and is it worth discussing at all? This may be a topic for a Town Square thread rather than Suggestions, as it is not technical in nature, but it'd be interesting to share knowledge and experience about which "recruiting techniques" worked best to make new players stick around. I usually just told them "there be workshops, I'm here for questions, if you wanna start with something you could do X". X being some task that can be done by a newbie, like making shafts or planks or bricks because you can always use that, or dig up some clay from a flat patch I have designated for that to increase digging. Especially good for newbies as the first levels of digging can be absolutely stupid and frustrating to gain in uncharted lands with the slope restriction. So...I try to let them run wild and do their thing because that's how you play a sandbox game, you entertain yourself with what the game offers rather than having it handed to you. My idea is not to hold their hands and order them to do stuff, but to provide a friendlier environment to get into the game, like a player established "Mentor town". So far everyone ran off overnight though after doing said task without asking further questions and most of them aren't playing anymore. So apart from the technical stuff I feel like discussing tactics for recruitment is also a topic of interest, but that may be because I have the wrong idea about this.
  10. +1, I had to start selling furs to the token because they started cluttering up my cheapo BSB. They are that useless, and severely need some more uses one way or another. (Fur clothing? Probably a topic for another thread though.)
  11. They would have "more power" by virtue of the QL gain Klaa mentioned in the OP, but what if my Gem is already (or nearly) 100QL? Those would be strangely left out if QL gain was everything to it. "More power" could instead be a multiplier on the favor a priest draws from a cut gem. As of now they get up to twice the amount of favor stored, which is pretty buff already, but with this rework the factor could range from 1 to xxx(3, 4? I don't know honestly), with factor 1 being rough, unprocessed gems. (That is, rough gems only give back exactly as much power as was drawn.) Another, more elaborate idea I'm just gonna throw in the room: Repairing. Instead of losing QL, gems could get damaged by usage to a degree that reflects the lost QL in loss of effective QL (Draw 10 stored points from a 50QL gem -> 20 damage, so that the gems effective QL is 40, which is pretty much what happens now) The repairing mechanics would be similiar(but probably somewhat more punitive for balance reasons) to the normal repair, where a high skill is needed to retain the QL on similiar levels. This would make high QL gems very valuable in the hands of an able gem cutter as they would last a lot longer, while the degradation is pretty much the same when the gem owner has no skill to speak of. (And noone to do it for him. Gem maintenance could become a new service offered on the trade market)
  12. Cannot attend due to work, but I dropped 2 crates of ~77QL ch. corn and went home because I'd rather get the sleep bonus while logged off. But if anyone with space for 2 crates passes by Windspears in G18 on the way home and can return them afterwards that'd be appreciated. (They are dirt cheap to make but hey, it's the thought that counts.)
  13. Having headdesked a few times doing stupid mistakes, I added some buttons to make moving recipes across the tabs way more direct rather than deleting something from the archive after recreating it on the workbench. To celebrate lazy convencience, I've packed it as a full release again having added some ingredients again, be wary not to overwrite your own ingredients.txt if you're upgrading and you've edited it to your liking or added ingredients of your own that you don't want to add again.
  14. Oh, gravely misinformed on the light token... my bad. I have two priests (from player gods, as you low key predicted) and they both just happened to have it, giving me a wrong sense of ubiquitousness of that spell. ¯\_ツ_/¯ I just think it'd be more natural and in tune with the current system to have some new PvE spells added (Like Ignite from the OP) and perhaps even old spells revamped to scale a bit more with channeling beyond binary success chances, to have "non-enchanters" profit from it in a more tangible way without dramatically changing the system or adding "new" mechanism to priesthood.
  15. I see where you're comnig from, Finnn, but was there no way to be a tad more civil about it? On Topic: The idea is interesting but to be entirely honest this exact proposal doesn't feel very well thought out. I wouldn't bring this up in a suggestion thread if you weren't so specific, by the way. But there are some abilities that feel rather shoehorned or out of place here (For instance: Why a spectral compass? And every priest has Light Token for nearly no favor cost, so why do we need Moonlight and why is it harder to reach than Unseasonal Harvest, which is massively more useful?) The primary incentive for channeling is to get better rolls on your buffs, that's what a priest subjects themselves to the massive restrictions for. You could make a case that no priest does channeling only and that the spells may at least give them a little bit of an edge in the niche tasks they are now confined to, but I don't see why these couldn't be minor spells common to all deities instead of part of a completely new mechanism that is tied to a skill in some contrived way. Some of the abilities you suggest would still reward higher channeling in the same "tangible way" if they were spells, like the Ignite one. Geomancy, while intruiging, isn't a light suggestion though. It entails the question about how essential gems are to a priests work/livelihood and if such a thing really must be obtainable through non-RNG ways. There's a big design choice behind changing that and it's probably worth of a discussion on its own.