• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Zuelatak last won the day on May 5

Zuelatak had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

220 Good

About Zuelatak

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

1501 profile views
  1. Lol I didn't even know that. I was told it had to do with the Valrei minigame for PvP and meant nothing for PvE.
  2. I can't understand what you're trying to say here, so I don't know how to respond. One question, and one answer that should not be needed period. Literally every question is one question, and one answer. . . You personally may ask the question once, and hear the answer once. But CA has to deal with the same question and provide the same answer for every single player that asks it in CA Help. That is boring, tedious, and going to cause burnout for those that wish to help other players learn the game. The problem is that it's an unnecessary question along with several others in this game that all add up together to making this game unnecessarily confusing. If you don't care if it's changed or not then why are you even participating in the discussion? Another problem of it's own. Mission Progress should be default on honestly, but that's a topic for another thread as well.
  3. IDK where kids came into this, but if a small portion of the community gets a small amount of enjoyment from randomly sacrificing different qualities of goods until they figure out what "decent" means compared to a large amount of the community getting a large amount of annoyance that just spam CA Help with the question over and over Then I'd say we should cater to the large community in this situation. The gain massively outweighs the loss of those few players who strongly cared about solving the mystery. Not to mention that the people who would be upset about it being spoiled are probably those who already solved the mystery. If people join the game and the mystery is already solved then it wasn't a mystery and no new player will ever know to even complain about the change.
  4. You left out the 2nd half of my response >.< I think this is something that should absolutely be spoiled.
  5. I agree with this. However, this is a videogame and not everything should be immersive / realistic. Especially something apart of your UI (User Interface) that is absolutely not immersive to any degree. Understandable! This is a game of discovery after all. However, not all mystery is good and when a majority of players just ask CA Help about it I no longer think it's worth being a mystery. At that point now it's just a hinderance for the many and a small enjoyment for the few. I'm totally okay with that too. As long as "30+ QL" is mentioned somewhere then I'm happy. Sounds like a great idea! But, lets make a new thread topic if we're gonna do that. I'd like to keep the main discussion about this specific change. Also something that I would prefer be a different thread rather than being discussed here.
  6. There are a lot of things in this game that are overly complicated, and not easily deducible. Without the help of CA Help answering this question everytime one of these missions comes up then people would have to randomly sacrifice items of varying qualities until the mission progressed. As this is already something that is widely known throughout the game except for new players I would request that the "decent" text be replaced with "30+QL". This would also allow for higher tier missions where it could be 50+QL, 70+QL, or even 90+QL. Without the need of saying above average, highly above average, and excellent which would create even more confusion for New Players. Benefits: CA members don't have to answer the same frequent question over, and over, and over New Players don't need to ask for help in order to figure out how to progress these missions I also know people who are too anxious to ask for help, and will often just struggle instead which sucks EXTREMELY easy fix. Only text needs to be changed. No real coding needs to be done.
  7. Only part that I think I would disagree with. I read this as replacing the tile image to be water rather than it be mechanically become a water tile like randomly spawning ones. Otherwise, I'd love the ability to choose what tile would produce water for my fountains. +1
  8. Your scenario still adds in extra information that we didn't agree on. You express that you know some "owner's choice" that they never told you about, and then somehow respecting it. It also doesn't account for those who stay silent, but want you to take their stuff, and now you're disrespecting them. This should be a yes/no Yes. You do. That's the point of my question that you continue to refuse the answer. So then do you believe the other mechanics I listed would be considered stealing too? Just ones that we allow for some reason? There's nothing wrong with someone taking another persons contents for any reason if they are destined to be deleted. I hope we can agree on that. Apologies that you see anything I say as yelling. I'm just trying to convey my summarized thoughts better to those that view the topic. That are outside the conversation. A TLDR I guess. Please stop insisting that you are all knowing and know when things are impossible or possible, and using that as reason to not answer my questions. I already explained to you that the point of the hypothetical is to find common ground and better understand our root issues. Suggestions are just changes to the game. They can be solutions, additions, subtractions, tweaks, whatever. And while the OP seems mainly in the addition aspect I feel like I have made a good point that lost history is a problem. But this is what I'm suggesting for locksss. A last moment scenario where the lock breaks or becomes pickable, so that items can be preserved. That isn't just speculation. That's conspiracy >.< Your against locks because of mysterious scenario where you assume people cheated. If there was such an exploit more people would be doing it, and it would be patched. Well the discussion is about making legal tactics, but if you'd still be against it for that reason then fair. A harsh stance, but a fair one. If the vehicle is just on the verge of being destroyed then it still makes sense to make it accessible to the player in some way to save it instead of watching such a rare sight vanish. If using my idea it would be the same thing stopping you. The item needs to be at least ~80 damage which would mean it doesn't have long to live and so we should label that as abandoned to allow a majority of goods that get lost to be instead saved. Why can't we suffer the let's say 365 day protection that a lock gives for 360 days and our items are not guaranteed to be destroyed if we become absent? You'll still have so much protection to potentially return to the game and get your items back. It would be such an edge case for the smallll % of people that would come back in those last 5 days we sacrificed. It would just be another mechanic of "stealing" that we consent to that also has the added benefit of not having history lost.
  9. While this is true there's an easy solution for this and that's to not care if something gets unbound. If you didn't know the bind to begin with then it was essentially blank to you anyways, so you'd end up setting it blank, and having to set it later when you need it. Which would be the same as it is now. However, if there's a default key there and Wurm alerted them of what unbound then they might actually like the default and stop themselves from messing up their keys. I'm not sure how to convey that confidence to a user atm, but maybe someone can help build off that.
  10. A summary of not an answer to my question . . . Please. If it is guaranteed that someone's stuff is going to decay and become destroyed. Are you opposed to someone saving it before it happens?
  11. What loophole? Even a potential loophole can easily be solved. Everything in this game is logged. Since this would be a massive red flag for the devs they would probably have an emergency shutdown, revert the update, revert the damage, and then do something with the users who exploited the loophole. The patch for the bug would be made and then they would try it again. Fair point. I was thinking about items that become ~10ql due to damage and therefore, had like 90+dmg. I'd like to change my idea to opinion to it being based on damage. That way it accounts for new players that have low ql. We could also possibly consider the idea of requiring a minimum of 10ql for locking too? But I think just switching to damage would be better. Current opinion: Yes to the OP under that condition that they have little health left. Possibly ~80 damage? Because it's sad to picture all of the items that are unreachable and slowly dying to suddenly shatter and be forgotten. All of the time the players before valued those items and worked on them to just be wasted. That history that is forgotten that could be saved, treasured, and remembered. Additional Idea: Have difficulty of the picking be based on the ql before its effected by dmg. (Giving incentive to the skillgain) If the picking fails deal more damage to the container. (Giving incentive to the skillgain) That way things like LMC's would be a lot riskier to attempt to unlock at low skill (Giving incentive to the skillgain) Assumed LMC's were high ql. I would also suggest improving their ql >.< but I also don't know why they're so low Rename "damage" of player made things to "durability" (to better translate to other games)
  12. What respect??? Where did this come in. All we know about Player A is that they have quit. What choice that you don't know they made are you respecting? I want to respect their belongings that will be deleted . . . since they quit.
  13. Yes, but these are different points. We are in a forum typing out our long winded responses to one another where in a verbal conversation you would answer the first, and then do the second. Could you please do so here, and just answer my question. I'm trying to establish a foundation of mutual understanding so we can then build off of it with ideas. No. Yes it's a violation of the rule. That's because the rule is built on the idea that you can't currently do it. That rule would change along with this change. I'm trying to understand why you morally dislike the idea. Saying something like "I don't like the idea, because it's against the rules" (which is what it feels like you're saying) isn't helpful to the discussion because we're discussing why or why not the rule should be changed as suggested.
  14. Why are you so intent in not conversing with me? Please. Just answer my questions. I'll gladly continue to answer yours as I have, but I'm tired of having my questions unanswered. You believe it can't happen. I do, so again please just answer my question out of principle, so I can move forward. Same goes for this. Please answer my question. Apologies if I'm wrong, but I'm guessing you see the time of it being unowned as 0ql. Why can't we bump it to 5ql or maybe even 10ql as @Archaed mentioned. Allow us to preserve these items before they decay, so that they can potentially be reused, repurposed, remembered. Think of all this history that is being lost that can potentially be given extended life. You're talking about people coming back and feeling like their efforts are gone, but this literally is their efforts becoming gone. I think it's fair to say that most people would rather their items continue living then die in their absence.
  15. I'm interested in you answering my hypothetical. If you want to give your own fine, but do it after you answer mine next time. This isn't describing a 100% confirm abandoned scenario as I'm asking for. You just proceeded to describe a 99% scenario which I'm already aware of your feelings on as you keep repeating it. I want to know how you feel in a 100% scenario. It's important to understand where you possibly agree, so we can better understand where you disagree. What we are discussing right now is how to define when a locked container is considered abandoned >.< It has no definition as it is currently not a feature of the game. That is why we are here. Also, prefer refer to my question to Trickster about why this "stealing" is different from other types of "stealing" in the game.