Roccandil

I like it, especially if stables had a manger you could fill, and could be built underground.

As a newbie, I was actually afraid of being hit by my own felled trees. (I was also afraid of felled trees hitting my horse!) Nevertheless, I agree that the mechanic would just be annoying, especially since you have no control over how the tree falls. At this point, I assume that guiding a tree down properly is simply abstracted into the process, and I'm fine with that.

On Epic, at least, I can already lower the corners of tree tiles by digging (I've dropped full-grown trees many levels without cutting them down). Levelling can work if you modify an adjacent tile, although (as I recall) flattening doesn't work at all.

+1 to rune recycling. (Perhaps it should also require the destruction of the item?)

- PoK: affinity protection, better PvE affinity chance, more effect from Mind Stealer. Nothing priest-specific there! - PoL: boost existing bonuses. Yeah, they're for priests, but I didn't create those bonuses. I'd like to see something different, but I'm still not seeing anything compelling for non-priests given the lore. I suppose we could add more efficient item usage while healing, with shorter timers. A hit point bonus, or better natural regen, or "aura of regen", or 50% stat gain bonuses are non-priest possibilities, too. - PoP: Sorcery/Spell bonuses. Spells are for priests sure, but sorcery isn't inherently for priests. If someone can think of another way to make PoP more interesting within the "power" lore, let me know. - PoH: Swap the spell immunity down to the lower bonus, give it a timer, swap the damage bonus up to 11, make it passive (and balance damage down if needed). Also not required to be a priest. (I'll grant some folks may want permanent spell immunity over a permanent damage bonus, but the damage bonus just seems more generally useful, like SotG.) So, of those suggestions for the four paths, the only one that actually adds anything new for priests is my PoP suggestion, and it's not entirely for priests. Plus, that suggestion also gives people a way to eventually be able to ditch batteries (which it seems a lot of people in PvE would like).

That sounds cool. As to character specialization, I know LiF enforces it, although I have no first-hand experience with how it's played out thus far.

The question of priests' role in PvP is certainly fundamental, but do we really expect that dynamic to change, even with the promised priest update? I wouldn't hold off indefinitely on a med rebalance in hopes of priests eventually being nerfed in PvP. One way or another, I'd like to see non-SotG med paths be more PvP viable. How much of a problem are priests in combat, by the way? I can see that being able to cast spells, on top of regular fighting skills, is simply superior. How unbalancing is that? If nothing else, I can see it adding to the time required for a new account to become PVP viable, which does seem bad. Do the spell-casting armor penalties need to be increased? Should priests be allowed to cast while wearing metal armor, or should priests not be allowed to wear metal armor at all, or even leather? Should priests get a melee CR penalty? Do we want priests to be a combat support class, not front line? Do we need non-priest champs, who can't cast spells, but just get the DR/stat bonus? Seems odd, lorewise, but if priests in combat are a problem, then champs are that problem tenfold. Or, maybe champs could just get a small subset of combat spells to cast, and a smaller favor pool than priests (rather like the Paladin class versus the Priest class in some games). Or, do we need different kinds of champion classes? One for warriors, and another for priests? (While I'm thinking about it, cloth armor providing bonuses to spell-casting could be cool, by the way, especially if we could make moonmetal wire/thread to work into it, with different effects! )

My bad. Still, making the hate damage boost a passive would make hate more interesting. I don't know what to do about priests and PvP, other than obvious/clunky things like nerfs to priest CR.

Been thinking about how I might try to rebalance the meditation paths. I wouldn't want to nerf SotG so much as make the other paths PvP viable. Knowledge: With the advent of PvE affinities, I'd make PoK protect affinities. No affinity loss in PvP with PoK (9?). That gives PoK a nice PvP-centric bonus that fits the lore, while not actually being a tactical combat bonus. Other possibilities: - Bonus to getting PvE affinities - More effect from Mind Stealer Love: Possibilities: - Favor cost for healing spells is halved - Cooldown for healing spells is halved - Difficulty for healing spells is halved I'm not sure that's enough, but I'm having a hard time lore-wise thinking of anything else to help Love in PvP. Power: This path feels like a mage-path to me, so I'd pick some combo of the following (if not all): - 25% cost reduction on priest spells (would allow high-favor priests to cast the 120 favor spells without needing batteries); - 25% cost reduction to karma spells; - 25% increase in power to priest combat spells; - 25% increase in power to karma spells Hatred: This feels like the tactical balance to SotG, yet the level 11 bonus is on a cooldown, while SotG is a passive. I'd make the level 11 attack bonus a passive, and balance its power as needed. Overall bonuses: Do the obvious thing with the above paths and parcel out their 11 bonus starting at 7, like SotG. As a crazy idea, could also be interesting to give a "resonant" path bonus for a follower of the "correct" god (or god using that god's statuette?): Knowledge - Vyn (additional exp gain) Love - Fo (additional healing effect) Power - Mag (additional spell bonuses) Hatred - Lib (additional attack power) These bonuses could be 2.5% each at levels 5 and 6. Part of the idea is to give those levels something to look forward to, since right now they do nothing. With the level 11 bonus starting at 7, that would mean nice bonuses starting at 4 and continuing without a stop. (Although I don't think Insanity needs a bonus to DR... )

+1 to storing longbows in a trunk (or -something- lockable).

+1

I've gotten two more affinities, each on a different priest alt (Cooking/Farming).

Not fair, not fair at all.

Aren't FSBs fitting in wagons covered by runes, or do you just want that to be normal?

+1 for shriveled

Another way to handle free-to-play would be to separate the skill tree into prem skills (say, channeling) and non-prem skills (say, shortsword). Free-to-play players could indefinitely skill in the non-prem skills, but would be limited to 20 in the prem skills. This could even be used to make lesser used skills and gear more interesting, like shortsword or small axe. With a bit more complication, you could customize all skills with non-prem caps, so, for instance: - Two-handed sword: 20 cap - Longsword: 50 cap - Shortsword: no cap And yes, any gain past the caps -should- be tracked, and not only tracked, but displayed prominently in the skill tree to non-prem players as an advertisement of what shelling out some money will get them immediately.

Hmm. Move more quickly while climbing? Allow normal walking on steeper slopes? Allow heavier loads while climbing?

A few thoughts: 1) I found Wurm via searching on "sandbox mmo", and of the options, Wurm intrigued me the most (especially the skilling by doing mechanic); 2) Once I created an account, I tried my best to "do" the tutorial, but it seemed to be an odd place where I needed to stand on particular tiles to trigger pop-ups to read, and there wasn't much actual learning; 3) I finally found the portal out of the tutorial zone, and was presented with the clearly enormous decision of which cluster and which island to choose. I actually logged at this point to do more research, which in my opinion shouldn't be necessary; a player should be able to make an informed choice based on the presentation at the portal. (I chose Epic/Serenity, and I'm very happy with that initial choice.) 4) Again, due to the paucity of the tutorial, as well as Wurm's inherently obfuscated systems, I spent a lot of my newbie time learning from the wiki. This is ok, I guess, but I believe it's far superior if what you need to know is available in the game itself. The less a player needs to stop playing to play, the better. I still really don't know what many skill/stats actually -do-, I just figure more is good. But, this steals rewards. For example, I know that my Woodcutting/Mining skill is my max gather QL. That means increasing those skills is very rewarding, and something to look forward to (O boy, I can get 90QL ore now!). For something like Body, however, what it does isn't clear. (The same is true for many parent skills.) 5) Trees -really- need selectable colliders; this was very confusing at first. 6) I was very frustrated by the skill mechanic requiring successful results to gain skill, while at the same time lowering the chance of a successful result for low skill. The devs have since fixed this on Epic, at least (all results give skill up to 20). 7) I was also frustrated by the RNG inherent in the "skilling by doing" mechanic. The devs have since improved this on Epic; skilling feels much more natural now. 8) The all-or-nothing RNG mechanics embedded in different systems are also a turn off. Effectively, they're gambling my time/effort for fun. Maybe some folks like that, but I get the impression more don't. 9) I've stuck with the game so far despite the petty frustrations and client lag/crashes, but there's still a significant "despite" that I suspect turns many potential players away. Finally, the premium model excludes free-to-play players, who in other games act as content for paying customers. The 20 skill wall is, I think, a place where many people stop playing because the game becomes a waste of time if you don't pay. I'd recommend considering the removal of the 20 skill barrier on Epic, and only charging for deeds. Epic's player base is small enough that I suspect it won't hurt bottom-line much, and it could be an interesting experiment. (It would also tend to balance the whole "let's-skill-on-Freedom" thing, since players could skill for free on Epic, but need to pay premium to skill on Freedom.)

+1 to repairable/impable tents.

Less tedious, yes. Anything that reduces repetitive clicking I'm likely to like. As to time taken, I absolutely agree it should take a long time to make a masterwork item, and that's the only real gameplay choice I see in the imping process; do I go for masterwork or sheer numbers? How much time do I spend on one thing? Currently, however, everything else in the process is noise (damage/switching tools/clicks) and I get the impression that the amount of clicking required right now is off-putting to a lot of folks, not to mention unhealthy. Were I in charge of the imping system, I would do the following: - Allow imping actions to be easily queued, whether through a toolbox or some other means. - Remove damage, while adjusting imp sizes to keep the total time required to imp the same. Damage is a petty frustration, and simply tells players they're wasting time and effort. As a developer, I'd want to respect my playerbase; my job (as I see it) would be to provide something fun, not frustrating, for as many people as possible.

I also wish knives skill gave a backstab bonus while being dual-wielded and wearing nothing heavier than studded leather, or something else rogue-ish.

On Minecraft graphics versus Wurm's, I think of that as the difference between functional graphics and scenic graphics, in which scenery is only there to look pretty, but doesn't actually do anything, whereas the functional graphics are there to offer valuable information; they actually mean something. As an example, I've noticed that playing Wurm with graphics on lowest settings is in some ways actually more functional (it's a whole lot easier to find that one normal grass tile in an enchanted field, for instance). On the other hand, one bit of scenery in Wurm that bothers me are the boulders that pop up in dirt tiles. I'm so used to things on the ground meaning something in Wurm, that the extraneous/scenic shapes seem out of place. (I actually wish that getting a field ready for sowing involved plowing rock shards out of the ground, but hey. ) Anyhow, I get the impression that a game that offers scenery for the sake of scenery will be judged to a different standard than a game that only offers functional graphics.

Clicking repeatedly to do the same thing is mindless and "bad". Good clicking involves making a meaningful choice. Thus, if selecting a different tool were a meaningful choice, it would be good clicking. In this case, however, it simply masks repetition.

I hear you, but in that case, I'd want a different sound for success versus failure. I really hate hearing the drum roll only to have it be nothing. (And in the case of the rarity roll, I don't think knowing you got the roll matters, since they can happen in a row.) Actually, in case of a failure, I wonder about doing a timed affinity for specific period. Maybe give the player a half hour of whatever skill had the best roll (maybe stack on top of any food affinities, so it could still be a nice bonus).

+1. Exposure should be a thing, too. I could see freezing tiles within X tiles of a land tile, so the more "ocean" tiles wouldn't freeze.