Enigma_Prime

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    16

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Enigma_Prime

  1. Posted

    Ash: would be nice if all containers that have the burn option gave ash over time based on how much you burn. Currently you have to build a bunch of coal piles or create an entire field full of camp fires. The reason… Your containers that burn fuel will only produce 1 ash? I think ash should be accumulated over time. So it seems current containers have a burn count down timer of sorts that adds time up to a maximum; then counts down until the fire goes out. Why not add a total burn time counter in the containers that reaches a max time then resets. Every time that counter reaches its max time it produces an Ash (0.10 ash as I recall) in the container. It will slowly fill up until it completely stifles the fire and needs to be cleared out. Now this shouldn’t be intended to inundate a player with Ash so the “Ash Timer” reset time should be… one or one half the max burn time so you only get one to two ash per refueling action. This also improves the issue with players accumulating A LOT of wood scrap from other projects. Speaking of which…

     

    Scrap: It also would be nice if coal Piles use primarily wood scrap rather than a ton of logs. It not only makes more sense (I’ve seen coal piles built in RL and you really do use mostly undesirable wood for it) but also improves the overabundance of wood scrap.  I would say it would be nice to see a craft list for coal piles to be more like this:

    3x Dirt

    4x logs (17kg or better)

    150x Wood scrap

    Crafting timers would have to be shortened for the large quantity of Scrap to add or have similar timers and have a requirement that the scrap has to be 10 Kg or better so the player would need to combine it. It would be enhanced even further if you had to craft the dirt into mud first but that would add a whole new ingredient to the game, Likely prohibitive for the devs.

     

    Thank-you for any thoughts on these subjects everyone! Happy Wurming!

  2. Posted

    9 hours ago, Yiraia said:

    Didn't take into consideration the horse could hold however much the saddlebag would allow and still move at player speed if lead, so It would be useful there. But the way you explained it still has no use depending on how the mechanic would work. If riding a horse with 60kg of items in your inventory was the same as just 60kg in the saddlebags, then making a bunch of backpacks would be the same.

     

    question is, should the bag only be locked if the horse is branded?

     

    Well all I have in this regard is I know from experience that if I am weighted down and want to move faster then I hop on a horse and get my toon unloaded. So I just figured it worked out that the horse could carry more than your toon.

     

    As for the lock well... (I'm gunna get flack for this) I was a big fan of the key system that Wurm had with all locks. I understand we all had to walk around with a tonn of keys back then but I feel they should have kept the key system and just allowed players to key locks to certain keys rather than have a key for every lock you made.... I would be ok with making locks for the bags and having a key for it. Heck I'd go with individual permissions for the bags.

  5. Posted

    13 hours ago, Talohan said:

    Think there was a small cart suggesting about hitching sheep to them and then leading them pulling the cart but +1 for both. Atlest a small crate since rafts fit in them why not a small crate?

     

    A sheep... Really? No joke? Why a sheep? I am confused with this rational... At least it was considered and I believe it should be considered again but with a horse.

  6. Posted

    10 hours ago, Yiraia said:

    +1 to small cart hitching, -.5 to saddlebags seeing that they have little to no function. Don't get me wrong, it would look cool to have them on horses, but you can easily just hold regular bags in your inventory and use those.

    Well I do understand that it would seem as though there would be no function however there have been many times where I believe they would be useful.

     

    Example: Olive season. I have to collect many, many, MANY olives every season so much so that i easily fill one backpack full of them. When I do the weight is great enough to slow me down. Now I understand that all I need to do is have a horse to ride and it is no longer a problem. Then I have to make a trip to my FSB to store them and off I go for... 5 more trips or so.

     

    My point is: I have a horse with me already, It would be useful to have a saddlebag on it to hold all of the weight (Id say two backpacks worth would be good) and then I can load my toon down. By the time I encumber my toon I would have around 300ish olives. Well then at that point I'm half way done! All without the frequent trips to the FSB. Besides even if it were to make it look cool... Why would you not want the game to look cool? If you ask me this game could use more visual cool.

  8. Posted

    So I looked at the forum to find anything about saddlebags and indeed the community has quite a bit about wanting it. So, I will not go into detail about it other than... Saddlebags would be a great addition to wurm! Seriously.

     

    Now onto the Small Carts. "But wait Enigma... There are small carts." Yep, I think it would be a nice addition to the game to have the ability to hitch one horse to the cart. it makes sense to me considering that is what people do with horses. They hitch them to stuff they would rather not pull on their own.Of course you would still have to lead it. The other thing that would be a nice addition is the ability to load a single Large Crate or two Small Crates in the Small cart. I cannot count the number of times where I needed to carry just one or two crates somewhere or needed a crate in a location where horses are unable to go. Hitching up a large cart for one crate just seems... excessive to me. In these instances I am forced to spend a large amount of time pushing or pulling it to the location. Even if the ability to hitch is not going to fly, loading into a small cart would be awesome.

     

    Well theres my 2 cents worth of Saddlebags and Small Carts!

  9. Posted

    3 minutes ago, Ayes said:

    Yep, I was having a bit of fun with you on the Real Estate fraud thing (although would not be surprised to see it happen sometimes). As for the rest, players who invite others to their deeds can already set specific permissions for them in various ways. Always some management and discernment necessary when doing so.

     

    Various individual deeds also form Alliances for their own "community" which gives them a chat tab as well, so they are not then "isolated in a sea of wilderness" if they do not wish to be. Community is what you make of it for yourself in this game and really is more influenced by one's personality than anything else. The best part of this game is that it offers everyone the option on how they choose to play it in that respect.

     

     

    And Happy Trails to You

    =Ayes= 

     

    I was wondering if you had a bit of sarcasm in there but i wasn't too sure. It is hard to tell with webposts. I am one of the individuals that have an alliance as well however this idea is to build upon that community. Thank you for the clarification!

     

    Enjoy!

  10. Posted · Edited by Enigma_Prime
    Noticed some errors in spelling. Likly more by meh...

    12 hours ago, Ayes said:

    Real Estate fraud in Wurm! Deed owner sells off parcels to poor Wurmanite paupers and homeless. When all parcels are sold disbands deed, sells off silver to other players converting it to RL currencies, starts another character and on to next land fraud scheme.

     

    Even if this does not happen every time it only costs 1 silver per month upkeep for a 21x23 tile deed. Cheap insurance in comparison with many more perks and total control of this area.

     

    There are a multitude of deeds actively seeking *anyone* to join them at no cost in coins/silver with many living options available. Sure, if the person is undesirable they will be kicked out but this may be preferable to deed plot "owners" who can't be kicked out, as living within this deed might be a more unpleasant experience that living in someone else's deed with more amenable players.

     

    Bad idea, complicated additional coding, GM oversight necessary to arbitrate "owner" disputes and unnecessary since better options already exist.

     

    =Ayes=

     

    As I do see your point on this, albeit a bit intense,  I do believe you are missing the point of the idea. As it is now all deed owners (or friends with permissions of deed control) have to actively seek out people to join their deed. This not only takes time and effort to do distracting from the game, but also it also has unfavorable side effects. The owner takes the time to find someone to join their deed, good, however a lot of them want to do their own thing on the deed. Now they have to find someone in the community that has permission to change permissions (not always hard to do but still distracts from the game, no to mention they are not always available). Another point I can make is the fact that I do not, as a deed owner, want to give a stranger that is unfamiliar with projects I'm working, free rain of my deed. Many of these strangers will not fully understand what they are doing in the game.

     

    Yes, I agree. It only takes one silver to own your own deed. However that hardly helps the lack of community this game provides. Everyone can have their own deed by themselves forever isolated in a sea of wilderness. Now provide a small area on a deed for an even cheaper price of a few copper and now you get in the levels where even a silver will go a long way. All the while being near other players to learn, grow, help and succeed in the community and have more fun with interaction.

     

    To your point of "Real Estate fraud in Wurm!"... Firstly it is disappointing that you would have that impression for other players in this game however I cannot disagree that there are certain players that do indeed play that way. I would think there would be identifiers in these cases for the player interested in purchasing these properties should notice. Such as the history of the deed. Has it been around long? Are there other citizens? Existing structures that time an effort has been put in that show intrinsic value to the deed owner? If there are no buildings on the deed; if the history is only a few weeks; if there are very few if any citizens with the deed then it is most likely not a good idea to put your value in the property. If the buyer doesn't look into the safety of their own value and is duped like this... well thats on them. Report the toon that owned the deed if you get enough reports against your toon... ban. Period. I have updated my post with the idea that renting spots is a more viable option and would possibly alleviate this "Real Estate fraud" idea.

     

    The point of this idea is to alleviate the distraction of micromanaging the deed to a more free flow  approach, so both the mayor and the new citizen can have a bit of buffer from any misunderstandings. The mayor set an area that the citizen can do what they want without the risk of anything getting ruined for the deed owner and The deed owner no longer has to put so much effort into getting citizens. As far as "... better options already exist.", well that is up to an individuals preference an opinion. I cannot ague the point with the exception that it is my opinion that the "existing options" are lackluster in comparison.

     

    Thank-you for your input and Happy Wurming!

  11. Posted · Edited by Enigma_Prime

    Someone on my post pointed me to this idea and I think both ideas could be mashed in one concept. It may be an easier interface than what I was visualizing. The motivation for me posting such an idea was both to relieve the micromanaging concept of the current deed system and "break the ice", as it were, for people trying to become part of a community. I really hope that we can eventually have a combined option of both ideas!

     

    EDIT: +1

  12. Posted

    This, I love this, I wants this, this must happen. I found it funny that they just went through an update with planters so you can grow all sorts of other things but very few spices and not woad. I was so sad when i realized this.

  13. Posted · Edited by Enigma_Prime
    Adding three sentences, getting rid of the edit:"" for obvious reasons.

    2 hours ago, McGarnicle said:

    What incentive would one have to spend silvers to buy land on your deed when they can use those silvers to buy their own deed?

    Most likely it would be considerably cheaper to buy property. For example: My deed is 32x32 (not huge but humble) This is 1024 tiles and it costs me approx 3 silvers 52 coppers which comes to about 35200 iron total. this is roughly .34 copper per tile. for a 5x5 space I'd charge about 8.5 copper. Now I know this could be considered anecdotal and the price that other deed owners would charge would vary a bit but if I was a newbie or an individual that does not want to bother with a deed then this would be enticing. Considering I would reap all the benefets of the deed without all the management. Besides the focal of this idea is to create more community and if joining a settlement was as easy as "hey buy this property and be a member of this deed so we can help you in a more effective way" would go a long way in my opinion to promote community. Not to mention this is a one time purchase rather than a monthly cost. I did some more maths and for an 11x11 deed (the smallest allowed) the monthly cost without a spirit would be 24c. with a guard add 100c/month.

     

    This maths is assuming, iirc, that 100 iron is 1 copper and 100 copper is 1 silvers etc (please correct me if I am wrong).

     

  14. Posted

    3 minutes ago, koroth said:

    I feel this is well thought out and well presented, However, I feel the questions left open would prove too great to really implement effectively. In an ideal situation where everyone got along well, this would be a great option. With some of the more nefarious people in the game, though, the problems may prove worse than the benefits.

    The ability to just change certain permissions on select tiles would be very useful. However I was trying to also tackle the "Player Community" aspect as well. Thank-you for your feedback!

  15. Posted

    2 minutes ago, koroth said:

    I feel this is well thought out and well presented, However, I feel the questions left open would prove too great to really implement effectively. In an ideal situation where everyone got along well, this would be a great option. With some of the more nefarious people in the game, though, the problems may prove worse than the benefits.

    Thank-you

     

    This is why I left those questions open. I was unsure how those questions would be resolved and my SO suggested I post it here to maybe find answers and to simply post the idea of course.

  16. Posted · Edited by Enigma_Prime
    Apparently this look potato on mobile (Format)

    I feel that many people play this game for the novelty of how WURM works and the fact that you have pretty much full freedom to do what you want when you want with specific limitations. However, it has been my experience, regarding WURM, that there is an issue with player community. The players themselves do what they can to promote community and the devs have done a wonderful job improving this area yet to me it seems that it still lacks the "Let's be togetherness". I believe this idea that I have about the ability to "sell" property to players if they wish to be a citizen of a settlement can help with this shortcoming. Selling property with preset permissions that come with being an "auto citizen" lets individuals get to know others by proxy of purchased property. Essentially the community stems from being neighbors.

     

    One of the walls I have found as a deed owner is the fact that I have to "get to know" anyone and almost everyone that I add as a citizen. I would have to spend a considerable amount of time with an individual, as a deed owner or an individual that is capable of inviting strangers to a deed, in order to fully know if they are trustworthy enough to not seriously grief/damage everything on my deed before giving them the permissions that they want as part of a deed. All the while the individual wanting the benefits of my deed, and the community that comes with it, will have to wait that considerable amount of time to do pretty much anything on deed while they craft and build things off deed (wasting their time in my opinion). This may not seem like a problem with settlements that have a population less than 5 however when it gets to the point that the settlement has 10 - 20 or more then it gets annoying.

     

    As mentioned before as a settlement mayor it is hard to justify the time spent getting to know all the individuals that want to enter my deed. It is time better spent enjoying all the facets of this game that I have yet to do. This is only my opinion but the micromanagement style to deed owning is arduous. This issue is reduced a little with the ability to sell property that I allocate on my deed. As the mayor (or anyone authorized to do mayor things) I can then set certain permissions that automatically take effect as soon as they buy the property (and become a citizen of the settlement) just like it is set up now. The benefit of this situation is the individual that purchased the property can do what they wish, how they wish within the confines of the purchased property and its set permissions. The ability to sell property on a deed alleviates the issue of "trustworthiness" of the individual and enables them to gain the settlement benefits they so desire all the while putting a bit of currency in the coffers of the deed (the purchaser will still have to adhere to and be aware of any taxes that come with being a citizen).

     

    It is no secret that WURM also lacks anything that can be considered an economy. It has been mentioned by the players and the devs uniformly that the trading system between players is... clunky at best. The idea of selling property will benefit to the inevitable solution by creating a bit of "cash-flow" through the settlement. The Mayor (or authorized citizens) plant a property marker, sets the price and they are done. As soon as another player "purchases" that property marker funds are debited from the players account and the deed coffer is credited. Now this is in no way to be a huge effect on the problem but does introduce motivation to both purchase and use in-game currency.

     

    So this is all good but how would a system like this be set up? Good question and I have thought about this quite a bit:

     

    1) Mayor (or authorized citizen) sets up permissions for a "New citizen" just like they do now. This will be what they are allowed to do anywhere on the deed (Pick-up items, not pick-up items, Lead, not lead, dig, not dig, etc.)

     

    2) Set up a "property profile" for different types of property (what the purchaser is allowed to do within the confines of this type of property) Similar to the "New citizen" permissions however will include subjects such as maximum slope allowed or maximum building height for example.

     

    3) Purchase a property stake from a trader (or make one. this would be entirely up to codeclub)

     

    4) Place the property stake. Now this seems simple however I have thought about just letting the "marker" be in the center like the deed marker but considering you are dealing with a much smaller area (I'm thinking minimum 5x5 tiles with a one tile [or more] perimeter) Having a marker in the center where you cannot build anything would be annoying. So the solution would be to place the marker and have a UI that would allow a 0 to be placed in the fields asking how far north/east/west/south you would like the property to be with a minimum of two fields filled in and a mandatory perimeter (minimum one tile).

     

    5) Apply a "property profile" to the marker and “citizen type” they would become if purchased.

     

    6) Set Price

     

    7) Player purchases property

     

    That's it. As soon as the purchaser buys the property they are now a citizen of the settlement (which is set with the "property profile") and can freely build within the property limits (also set in the "property profile"). From here on it is up to the new citizen to get to know others do good things for the settlement and gain more permissions or higher citizen ranking along the way. I admit there are a few more questions that need to be answered that are more difficult to deal with and ultimately, if this idea takes off, would have to be debated. However this is the gist of the subject.

    Some questions that I had a hard time confronting:

     

    1) If an individual purchases property then quits playing/doesn't follow the rules/irritates the other citizens; do I as the mayor have the right to revoke their citizenship and take their property?

    A: If the property was rented you could as deed owner refuse to continue contract after expiration.

     

    2) If, as a mayor, I have the right to take their property how does codeclub prevent mayors from stealing your game currency by booting the citizen out as soon as the transaction is complete?

    A: The mayor would be bound to a "rental contract", as it were, and be unable to cancel the contract until the agreed upon time is met. The deed owner would also be unable to disband the deed until such time that all rental contracts are expired. This would alleviate this issue.

     

    3) Would a purchaser have the ability to purchase more property and if so how would I prevent them from “land-grabbing”?

    A: All properties are by contract and a default of one contract per toon. It would be between the deed owner and the renter to allow for a bigger plot.

     

    4) Would a purchaser have the right to develop the property then sell to another? If so does the second purchaser become a citizen? and to this if so then what level of citizen?

    A: No, however one could allow the rental contract to expire therefore allowing another individual to rent the space.

     

    5) Can purchasers "sub-lease"/share the property?

    A: No

     

    6) After purchasing; would the purchaser be able to add others to the property and set permissions for them?

    A: No

     

    EDIT: It has bee pointed out by Vanyel that renting spaces would be more viable and I agree.

    EDIT 2: If you like this idea you may like this idea as well