Flubb

I feel a bit split on it. It'd be one thing to find the occasional ruin, despite them being barely interactable on PvE, it's still cool to think that someone lived there and do some archaeology to find out who. I'll miss that sort of history on SWO. But when it's nothing but ghost towns, ships that even Davy Jones wouldn't want to have, carts that haven't moved in ages...it really drives home the notion that you're playing an MMO solo in the current state, and at some point you wonder "Why even bother?" Granted, this is a problem with the playerbase quintessentially. But the way property is handled in this aspect does nothing but exacerbate the problem. The game should primarily be for those who play, not those who may return. And no, the irony of me saying that isn't lost on me. I'm saying this not as someone who will come back when Xanadu is cleared out - I gave up on Freedom, full disclosure. I'm saying this remembering what it was like using the PoI random teleport seeing just about every place possible on Xanadu and finding nothing but looming reminders of past glory.

The next post kinda does lol. And hyperbole aside, even as an "anti-RMT'er", I acknowledge that its removal may just kill it. It did keep some players in the game, but RMT does not seem to have attracted enough players to keep the game afloat with this unique attraction, ultimately it just slowed Wurm's demise, but does little to stop it. So changes are prudent. Wurm is placing its bets on different means of player retention now, and if those fail, it'll end up having nothing instead. It's a real possibility. But I think judging the removal of RMT in a vacuum when it comes to the games vitality in a vacuum is moot, it's as @Ekcinsaid, this is only a compromise to join Steam, not because it'll be good for the game short or mid-term. The only tangible benefit of its removal that I see is that the Steam cluster will have a healthier character pool with a (more) natural "life and death" circle in the long term, but that's assuming that SWO will even last that long to reap those benefits. And there's the thing about incentives and the people it may attract, should one consider them unsavioury...

Fair point. Now that you say it, even GGG cannot seem to staunch the amount of spambots in Path of Exile. (Although I think they also just do a blatantly bad job at filtering standard bot messages. Makes one wonder...) Perhaps it's just a neccessary evil for having any sort of economy in a game. I mean, staying stuck at effectively 200 players in an MMO isn't a great alternative. Not to say that you are suggesting that we should.

Minor point, but wouldn't RMT exacerbate this problem further by making the trade even more lucrative to these players? Not really relevant to the points you were making but just something that caught my eye. Either way, if, and only if, steam brings in so many players, Wurm will just have to move away from the archaic trade chat and do something auction house style. No automation of logistics whatsoever, you still contact the person yourself and arrange delivery/pickup, just a nicer interface to sift through what's out there.

The point was that you have a warped sense of what "community representation" is and how honestly you engage with said community. 95% of Wurm PvP players may like the idea for all we know. It's like people who say they are pro democracy - until they meet someone who would vote differently, then we quickly need to defer to other instances and authorities to keep that in check. And it's evidently not just 2 people not liking it. Just two who are suckers for punishment enough to entertain your ramblings for this long. So it's a fallacy for "us" (though you knew I don't actually play at the moment) to think us playing makes our opinions more valid (which would make no sense for us to think like that because you're playing aswell.) But at the same time mine seems to be less valid for not playing. Unless this is just another meaningless jab at me that means nothing in the end. Seems pretty hypocritical either way. If saying someone is arguing emotionally and an intellectually dishonest fashion is calling someone crazy, you're correct. I disagree though. I don't think you're mentally ill. Merely of weak character. Second part is wholly unsubstantiated. You're conflating my position with Vomusu's. And even so, they are merely offering some observations about the engagement this thread receives and deduces a general sentiment from it. What are you trying to achieve with this hyperbole? If you want to appeal so much to the unaccounted masses, shouldn't every insight count for something without treating it as an "all or nothing" based on a facetious and inaccurate formulation that was given way too much meaning? Look at it this way, devs need to decide on their own discretion wether a suggestion is worthwhile, but at the same time the community sentiment should be considered. That's what I get from the things you said. (Others might like it + this suggestion is for the devs). How do you aim to consolidate these two principles, where are devs supposed to consider community sentiment if not the forum (and whoever they are privately in contact with who also play the game.)? Unrepresentative as it is, I get what you mean, really, but it's kind of the best we have when it comes to public feedback? Everything beyond it is just hollow speculation. I don't even know what you mean by "claiming the victim role". To what end even? Because I assess that you're trying to be hurtful (emphasis: trying), which is way more derailing, counterproductive and disqualifying to your precious "discussion" than any allegation you level at me? Coming from the self-perceived underdog who "predicts" being shamed for their "innovative ideas" before barely anyone even answers. Lel. Oh? I recall you concluding that "you must be reaching then" quoting a post making a vague reference to the "ad populi" BS around 3 corners, which I did to make an entirely different point. I honestly didn't have the sentiment you deduced there in mind at any point, my contention was just tangentially related and I already laid it out above.

NGL I thought bringing up money laundering was pretty damn wild at first, but you make a surprisingly good point about liability and accountability by third parties. It's easier for Steam to handle their multitude of games by telling them to stay away from that cluster###### that is RMT rather than relying on every individual party of them to do their due dilligence. Some may consider it lazy on their part, while I'm erring more on the side that dealing with this on Steam's scale is rather untenable. It's not ideal but understandable (generally speaking, I still think RMT for Wurm was not a healthy choice overall)

It's funny how I am both going offtopic and somehow still "mad" or whatever about the suggestion itself. It's just funny and, in a way I perversely enjoy, frustrating how easy it is to point out these inconsistencies. For example, just now you're flip flopping between "The community might like it!", but when parts of the community tell you they don't, you go to "Well it's a suggestion for devs only anyway, your individual opinion doesn't matter", revealing a glaring double standard where this could be turned right against you to say that yours doesn't matter then either. To prove a point what a bad take that is and obviously a petty, self-serving deflection against disagreement. You're clearly trying to cherry pick favorable opinions. This is the mark of someone who cannot handle disagreement. That's where I see the projection when you accuse me of the same, but the fact of the matter is that your thinking is very transparent to me, and it's just fun to lay it bare. If you can't handle that - and you clearly cannot, going for mediocre low blows in an attempt to be nothing but hurtful -, you have no business on open platforms meant for discussion.

✓Taking it as a personal attack (implication of being called retarded) ✓Ignoring most of the post (Addressed nothing of it) ✓Ascribing ulterior motive ✓False pretense like you haven't indulged into offtopic remarks yourself (This string in the convo spawned primarily from you mentioning that Vomusu is allegedly alone with his opinion, based on a petty misunderstanding of his use of "nobody" obviously meaning in a facetious way that there's not enough appeal for this to make it worthwhile.) The prophecy is true.

Except people in the thread are all actively disagreeing with the post, it's not just the lack of "likes". The "collective that agrees with him" is in no way imaginary, however small it is. But you ignore any dissent or even jsut reasonable objections and deflect and devolve any disagreement into personal attacks, many of which are pure projection. (Nobody speaks and probably even thinks about social media platform dynamics or "validation of a person", jesus christ man, those are your words, not anyone else's.) Example of the first one: Whereafter you post, without mention of said effect on the "normal servers": I dislike dogpiling on a person for putting their ideas out, but Vomusu is right, you are deluding yourself. It's not a matter of what the ideas are, but the intellectually dishonest and conceited way you push them. But go ahead and make up some narrative about why I say this with some ulterior motive other than honestly assessing your disingenuous rhetoric, ignoring most of my criticism that I try to make as constructive as possible, just to have it taken as a personal attack that must be deflected with further sophistry instead.

And what a wonderful job you are doing, warranting responses from staff like this with your fever dreams ideas.

It's also not a true sandbox because we don't have noclip, we have action timers on things we need to create instead of being able to just spawn them. If you're looking for a true sandbox, Minecraft creative mode and whathaveyou is more up your alley. The idea itself sounds fun with having megaprojects in mind, but I'd wager the people who want to PvP won't care for the rather long windup of essentially not PvP'ing and just exploiting another server for the resources to get it started at all, if they could just go onto a server with an existing map and not jump such hoops. Or start up a different game that actually let's them play without such obstacles in the way. Sounds more like a PvE server idea, but we can't even get a hunting server...😶

What, you mean with a smelting pot? That's already a thing though, unless you're thinking of something more specific.

It's already a stupid business practice of appraising something just shy of a full, rounded amount just to appear cheaper than it effectively is. Do you really have to one-up it like that?🙄

Lmfao, thanks for making my day with this one. anyway, to the "whales" complaining: The game is failing already despite your spending. Not even all staff is on a payroll, including devs. It might be a "desperate last ditch effort" to try and cater to a different audience, but imho that's better than idly fizzling out.

Damn, you're actually giving me hope that the game is getting on track and becoming healthy again. I know I've been a petulent pest to you guys lately, but credit where credit is due; I had lost hope that you hadn't it in you to turn this boat around before it hits the reefs, and the brass balls on your recent decisions prove me incrementally wrong. Actually getting excited to try the game again on Steam in a fresh landscape.

Eh... didn't you reply to Themystrix, lowkey accusing them of the personal gain motive? Just to then demonstrate how this observation isn't coherent with their suggestion even in your own perspective? Bit of an irrelevant tangent you went on there. You honestly seem rather defensive about all this, just saying. Whatever beef you have with Eva is no skin off my nose. Being unburdened with that history, I only look at the suggestion itself and seeing the resentment against "cheap alt use", it seems like an effective one that really shouldn't be all that controversial. I haven't heard any argument why it's a good thing alts can be used, all you offered are deflections about how "it's actually hard to pull off". That doesn't really offer anything really insightful, though, especially with reports about this directly contradicting eachother in this thread. I'm gonna play devils advocate and say that you losing something appears much more tangible and apparent than OP (directly) gaining something out of this suggestion. Point being, you can't throw crap around without covering yourself in it. Keeping your personal gripes out of these threads would be a better look and likely more conducive. For all I know you could be completely correct about her and her motives but if so, she's playing her cards way better than you because your posts here (and elsewhere) just make you look overtly antagonistic. From an outsiders perspective who has no personal gripe or connection to either party. I hate being that guy because this sort of rhetoric is constantly weaponized in this subforum by chambering personal preferences and viewpoints into its barrel when not neccessarily applicable...but if that's your gripe with a full loot PvP, I think your problems lie elsewhere than a simple barrier of entry preventing cheesy tactics. Sounds like one of it is RMT, which to be honest I agree with, losing so much real life money in a game for one failure is ridiculous. But if I weren't willing to recreate the gear one way or another, generally speaking, I'd ask myself if FLPvP really was for me. And frankly, it's what kept me out of it, too.

Is that a mutliplier like CoC on skill ticks? So someone with +90 mining and a strong Stone Strike can reach nearly 100% surface mining success?

To be fair, the Elevation reset was widely clamored for in the time leading up to it, it wasn't just a stunt from CCAB's own initiative. I even supported it back then thinking it would staunch the complaints of the PvP community. I was more optimistic back then...though you could say that it worked, nobody asked for another Elevation reset after that. People just widely gave up on it.

It has been 0 days since the last PvP related suggestion without KvK banter mixed in. As a neutral observer, I think the obvious answer to that question is that your accusation of aiming for personal gain is baseless and it really is about providing a minimum entry barrier to prevent "alt abuse". That's their premise, which you dismiss, insert your accusation of personal bias into it and suddenly have to ask for clarification on what their premise had answered perfectly fine had you not dismissed it to replace it with your accusation. Doesn't that strike you as trying to adapt observable reality to your personal perception of other people, rather than the other way around, which anyone remotely charitable would do? Of course it is easy to question the motives of your opponents when they had just lost, but it just might be that the way they had lost has revealed to them a flaw in the system, whereas losing a different way that felt more in line with a satisfying and engaging PvP experience had not spawned this thread. Try to question your own biases as well for a bit, not just everyone elses. I have no stake in it or enough insight to discuss wether it is alt "abuse" or just fair game, nor what went down to specifically incite your rants here, but just on paper it doesn't sound like a very straightforward and "honest" way to engage in a PvP activity if alts can be used willy nilly. It sounds metagame-ish as you can just kamikaze into the fray with significantly less skin in the game than those bringing their mains with gears and affinities to lose - who seem to want to experience this instead of playing some petty cat and mouse game. Just my 1.5 cents.

Wurm player: Spends years in real life building up a particular skill on their avatar OR: Would be cool if it added some latent bonus to the skill though, like increased improvement ticks. First time you reach 90, you 'merely' can make 90QL tools with that skill. Every time you get there again, it's easier/faster to imp them there. But when could one reset? Only at 100?

Accurate representation of the Suggestions subforum fighting for the devs attention.

Also Arimus: So Fairyshine is "not allowed" (by whatever authority) to introduce analogous examples to illustrate a point about personal freedom and choice, but you can to illustrate a point about personal achievement and progression. Gotcha. 🙄 Come on, don't be so obtuse about her point. She even said herself that hers is an objection that can be applied rather liberally, and you try to just dismiss it because of that. But it's a valid one. I had a massive rant of rather academic nature spelled out but I decided to go with brevity instead. The problem, as it appears to me, is depth vs. breadth. To argue that players need to adapt to some goal and a specific roadmap laid out to get there works for games with depth, but there's no singular goal in Wurm, making it way muddier and vague to make any assumptions about "desired gameplay experience". This is reflected in many posts here, one that you even conceded to (Muse's post). Some will just feel relief having killed that Troll, but not be happy they had to deal with this nuisance to begin with. The sense of achievement you have planned won't come to everyone, the player's interests are too diverse to make that assumption. I share your sentiment that PvE can use some more challenge, but I feel like you're ahead in the thinking progress when scapegoating LT for making everything too easy. Let's take a step back to "PvE needs more challenge", and try a different route from there. There have been suggestions to make tracking in PvE useful, for instance, making harder encounters more predictably accessible to fighters. This won't affect non-fighters, make high quality gear and skill (and possibly LT to last through such encounters better) a neccessity in this context. I think for a game with as many choices as Wurm has, carving out niches for particular interests like this is more conducive to improving gameplay experience than making whole-sale changes that affect everyone in a playerbase with conflicting and hard to consolidate interests. Mostly. It's a grey area, there has to be some shared core or Wurm might aswell split into different games, sure. It's difficult to delineate the borders of that core, but I usually draw the line where you expect people to enjoy a particular aspect of the game, at least in the case of Wurm, for the reasons stated in the second paragraph.

To keep all those ducks. They have to be somewhere

The problem I see with this attitude is that the consumer-producer relationship is rather asymmetrical and tipped in favor of the consumer. No business is entitled to having customers, and customers can just choose a different product. CCAB only has this game, while players have many other options that respect their time and preferences more. It's the old "whoever cares less in a relationship wins" rule. I agree with you in principle here but pragmatically these "doctrines" - as much as CCAB has the right to stick to them - seem more and more like a grave than conviction to a vision. It's one of the reasons I chose to cash out of OGWO while it's still possible and will carefully observe SWO as a last chance for the game to gain any traction again.

Auto-X? What!? Then why won't I get Auto-Y?! Stick it out, tedious micromanagement is what Wurm is about! Reeeeee. +1, it's senseless and annoying window clutter to go through opening your fuel BSB to get a single log/cluster of scraps and breaks the otherwise relaxing flow of the imping session. It'll also be funny to read about people burning their stock of 50k woodscraps because they forgot to snuff their forge before logging off.