Flubb

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.

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.

@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.

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.

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.

Yep, the wrong date is definitely going to tip them off as Wurm being dated. Not the screenshots or anything.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Databases are shared, so you cannot reuse your old name. Probably connected to the fact that the Steam cluster will be basically just a new one that coincides with the release, as both clients will be able to connect to Freedom, Epic and Steam. And wether a merge will happen still is written in the stars from what I know. It depends not on a "when", but an "if". (To be precise, if the Steam cluster will gain enough traction and have a sustainable population on its own)

That'd be great, though it would already help if pegs worked like sealing kits, where they are returned to your inventory with some damage taken. "But they are so cheap and easy to make!" Yes they are, fictional detractor, but the problem is the hassle of running off to some BSB or making one just to reseal the barrel that also made me kinda adverse to just casually pop a barrel open. Heck, high quality pegs that can withstand several sealings could even have some slight demand then.

Just like you are constantly trying to troll PvEers whenever this suggestion comes up? He's referring to the fact that you (personally, and parts of dwindling PvP population) don't actually want people to come to Chaos just to make merch and just constantly deflect the suggestion with this clearly bad faith counter proposal. The "current system" is irrelevant to the OP, the whole point of it is to not use it and have something separate for PvE, so wether Etherdrifter understands it or not is not required to make this point.

Quack

Said token does not replace the real payment, it only symbolizes the delay for the real, tangible payment. That in itself makes it a tangible thing by proxy. So no, it's not the same thing. So no transaction is made. No payment is made then either, however miniscule. It only reads as agreement if you twist and wind yourself out of your original premises, which was to ask if this substitutes as payment. And by this decsription, I don't see how it would. If deliberately misunderstanding common concepts with rather reaching statements to frame them as points on a "grand spectrum" when there are quite commonly understood nuances to delineate them further constitutes a "philosophical" discussion to you, I guess I just don't see enough use in it to humor it to the extent you'd like us to, no offense.

The liquor and violence are fictional. Nobody gets drunk of it, nobody carries bruises after a fight in WO. However, if someone has to pay you silvers, which may be paid for with real money, to participate in your raffle, real resources were involved and it very much is real gambling. False equivalence. But the outcome is based on chance, and that's what matters, not the way the decision is made. This is clearly sophistry, so I'll just answer this by extending the example ad absurdum: I shall not offer you smiles or happy words, I'll scowl and curse at your lottery for lackluster prizes to win, but participate anyway. Am I in breach of some "contract" now (except for common courtesy about gratitude and not looking a gift horse in the mouth)? If my positive sentiment is a payment requirement, is it really a "free" lottery as you say? Also, "smiles and happy words" are not expendable resources, they're a sentiment, something far more abstract, and are not subject to the concerns about gambling in any way. You can't (physically) run out of smiles and happy words. A payment is an investment of some sort, if you lose nothing for giving it, it's not really a payment. If this incoherent rambling is your attempt to shoehorn WO into being gambling itself: You are paying for access to the (full) service. Your attempt at reframing a gameplay mechanism into a service level issue that you pay for falls pretty flat considering that free toons are just as much subject to RNG as premium accounts are, demonstrating that these two things are independent from eachother.

Lmao @Wargasmyou literally said what Etherdrifter alluded to the last time this was suggested for Freedom, those words aren't being put there. I do agree with @Votipthough, specifically because he qualifies his opposition with "as long as this is the case". I'm always saying that if PvP needs this feature gatekept because of its cost, then clearly the true problem is that PvP is prohibitively expensive which it really shouldn't be. The funny thing is how rare suggestions about adjusting the cost of PvP seem to be compared to custom banners for Freedom. I can't even think of a single one, while this the one suggestion I've seen crop over and over again most. No, I don't think PvPers just want "profit" out of this, especially with RMT out of the window this seems like a petty accusation. But in an uncharitable interpretation, it looks like you guys are pretty complacent having the playstyle subsidized. And I'm saying uncharitable because I'm playing devils advocate, I'm aware of the complaints about the PvP meta and how messed up it is and that devs don't really give a darn about it, but why not formalize these complaints and make a suggestion for changes to the cost model of PvP to make it stand on its own legs like it deserves? Also explain what currently finances PvP, referencing PMK merchandise. Then, even in the likely case that nothing comes of it, you can at least refer to the new thread as a reference of what you want before Freedom banners should be a thing in your eyes. Might save a lot of back and forth in the future because this suggestion isn't going to lay down it seems.

Then it seems more like a nomenclature issue, because "testing server" sounds more like an ephemeral environment without any guarantees over it's permanence or significance to the service provided. More like the "bleeding edge server". Perhaps I'm nitpicking there. But mulling over it, it makes sense to have a live testing stage server. Good points. Might be a reason for the devs to not bother with a PTR, and lack of involvement might be just that. And with a rotating system, no server is relegated to being the lab rat alone. There is also a good reason the test client is separate though...because it has a different codebase. What would happen to travel between servers? Is the current guinea pig just cut off? How does the launcher that joins into the cluster even differentiate wether to pull the current update or not, the moment you try to log in a character that is on the current LTS? And it downgrades the client when you start a toon on a different server? That would screw over running multiple clients because it cannot patch while a client is running. I get why it would make sense on paper, but it sounds like a pain in the arse just in terms of code maintenance and logistics if you think the implications of a heterogeneous codebase in an interconnected server cluster through.

There is a public test server though? I'm not sure how to join it, or if it's even up at all times, but I never saw any "PTR Patch live" announcement of sorts either; so if anything devs could involve the playerbase more proactively on whatever is going on there, deploying each patch there a few days before official release and making a forum announcement. But Exodus is where many had made their homes in a production level environment for the last years, not a good idea to just pull the rug from underneath their feet for something that precisely exists for this purpose (but may not be optimally utilized at the moment). Edit: Unless the whole idea is to have something in between production and testing stage, where Exodus is treated as a permanent server with increased "risk". It can actually be a good thing to test a patch in a "real environment" first because some things don't show up in a testing environment for several reasons.

Bruh...

Which is actually just "ferret" (fu-e-re-tto) spelled in Katakana lol I only have furry potatos though to post personal pictures from, so here's me trying to contribute to the thread anyway by stealing from the internet: https://i.imgur.com/yNjduNR.mp4

has an impalong PTSD flashback to diseased sermon crowds

No, you don't, as usual. You even get the first thing wrong saying that I'm against the idea of Freedom custom textures after I suggested how it could be reasonably implemented.

They are when unused (ideally), but that size would quickly explode, and the actual issue is what happens at events like Impalongs where every Joe has their individual skin that all have to be loaded into the texture buffer. That concern is widely a theoretical one though, as I don't know how large these textures are individually. What you propose in an earlier post just seems like a hamfisted way of delaying the problem that you claim isn't there. And even if that was your way of announcing how the problem is solved by this, it really isn't in the long run. And as much as Wurm players are willing to drop money on the game, making it a bidding competition is just downright scummy on so many levels.

No, they are not. They are suggesting that Freedomers can create own textures, as alliance or otherwise, which is not a feature. Don't be obtuse. What you are proposing is an alternative way of achieving the same goal. At which point I have to ask, what do you think of the Crow Kingdom? Oh right You were totally fine with a suggestion gatekeeping PMK stuff further so they can exactly not do as you suggest here. So, would you be fine with freedom banners if this had become a thing or are you just laughably hypocritical? In any case, the constant "you can already do it, except you cannot, really" is a poor rebuttal that is way too often employed on this forum. There are way better reasons why Freedom cannot have the level of customization as PMKs do, which stem from the vastly greater diversity this would spawn. There is the technical issue that MrGary mentions, and perhaps the aesthetic concern, though that seems like a stretch if the entry price is as high as on Chaos. The dev team would also simply not be able to keep up with the vetting process. I do recall a suggestion in this general topic for Freedom to not be able to submit a fully customized texture, but to choose from a primary/secondary logo with color modifications as many other MMOs do, which was also positively received, even as a "better than nothing". No submission process required, and no reason to gatekeep it further than some creation fee. Give an option to disable Freedom custom textures so you can enter an impalong without your dusty old GPU getting a heatstroke and I see a reasonable compromise.