Coach

Members
  • Content Count

    438
  • Joined

Everything posted by Coach

  1. I guess i need to start suggesting all players can use an instant travel mechanism like a gm creative mode. Well, Wurm has numerous mechanisms of instant travel that have not "destroyed travel" and there's no reason to believe the gm instant travel creative mode should be any different. What a wonderful argument🤭. It's just one more way of travelling quickly from one point to the other. No big deal. Such a fun game. Hey, it's faster than the stone circles teleport, don't even need to spend the entire time to reach to a stone circle😉. Is a yes to gm instant travel mechanism for players, right?
  2. This topic is about the comparison of the stone circles teleport before the add(now) and after the add(Ideal future). Now: a whole bunch of teleport stuff Ideal future: a whole bunch of teleport stuff + stone circles teleport We are talking about the amount of time and effort being saved that the stone circles teleport would bring. Not something we already have now that can save a lot time and effort because its out of topic. U were only talking about "Now: a whole bunch of teleport stuff." That's why i had this questions. i think one of the core of wurm is everything takes time and effort to achieve something, like this
  3. It's a bit off topic to talk about every single already-in-use methods whether they should be added or not because the focus should be on whether this stone circles fast travel suggestion should be added or not. And a suggestion is about a comparison of between now and the ideal future. If the fast travel consider a travel, then fast travel won't destroy travel after the adding because it's just add a different type of travel called the fast travel. Whether stone circles fast travel destroy/replace travel(shipping, vehicle, walking, whatever, etc) or not, doesn't mean stone circles won't save a lot of time and effort in general to achieve something, compare to the travelling we have now. Whether Spirit house didn't replace travel or not, doesn't mean spirit house didn't save a lot of time and effort compare to shipping, transferring by vehicle or walking. What makes spirit house magical mailing(already-in-use methods) relate to the suggestion of stone circles fast travel? A suggestion is for people to compare now and the ideal future. To discuss a suggestion is good or bad for the future and give reasons. Back to the stone circles fast travel, obviously, the suggestion will not destroy travel, but it will save a lot of the time and effort to achieve something compare to the travelling we have now. The suggestion is a no no for the future.
  4. Never use it. Haven't tried the exploration update launched in the test server. If people stream the update or make videos more, it would be nice to understand the new mechanic.
  5. People keep saying this concept in this discussion. I already replied on the last post but lets reply it in a different way. Imagine someone suggest to add motor vehicles to wurm online. And people use this "If a person doesnt want to partake in using motor vehicles then guess what? They do not have too." as an argument to support adding motor vehicles. Ya, they don't have to, but motor vehicle did't appear in medieval time, and motor vehicle violate the core of wurm which is a medieval theme of a game. The suggestion of adding motor vehicle violate the person's expectation of wurm online. So the argument is not a reasonable one for them. A logical concept doesn't mean it's reasonable reason. Back to fast travelling, i think one of the core of wurm is everything takes time and effort to achieve something. If the suggestion of fast travelling save a lot of time and effort compare to the travelling we have now, that's a no. Also this stone circles fast travel teleporting is gonna be abused by the meta-people. They use less time and effort to create more silvers, achieve things quicker, can teleport thousand of times, while the newbie doesn't have the requirements to use this stone circles. Require priest, 600 karma, gems, favor? What? Just like the caffeine mechanic added in the first time. Not a newbie friendly or a less playing time player friendly mechanic. It will increase the differences between meta-people and newbies or the causal. Some people think the core of wurm is an old school game. If the suggestion lean to a typical modern type of game and it violates their expectation, they may oppose it.
  6. Idlamn talked a lot about the experiences why fast travelling won't work for Idlamn. Lets turn them into theory. Thanks for pointing out what a lot of people seem to fail to understand. Wurm is a sandbox game. If wurm is just a sandbox, people can do whatever they want even other people doesn't like it. Here is the trick. Wurm is also a game. Offer multiple options and let the player know how those choices affect the game and the players. A strategy game for finding dragon. A economic game for trading stuff. This can be a competition. That means if fast travelling suggestion doesn't benefit the player in a competitive game compare to now, the player may oppose the suggestion. A smart competitor know what to choose if the suggestion is being executed, there are slow travelling and fast travelling, he will choose fast travelling 100% the time. He choose fast travelling only because he is being competitive, like earning silvers more compare to slow travelling. Unfortunately, he doesn't like the suggestion change at all. A smart competitor know what to choose if the suggestion is still a suggestion, there are slow travelling(stay what it is) and fast travelling, he opposes the suggestion and 100% choose slow travelling(stay what it is). He choose slow travelling(stay what it is) because he can earn more silvers compare to fast travelling being added. Earn 10 silvers if there is no changes > 5 silvers choose fast travelling from two options after the change > 1 silvers choose slow travelling from two options after the change. He knows what option is the best for his competitive style. This sounds cruel but this is a sandbox game, competitive playing style happen, chill playing style happen, other playing style can happen. It is arrogant when wurm is just only a sandbox because sandbox means everyone can create nearly anything they want, no one should interrupt other player's choice. However, wurm is not just a sandbox, wurm is also a game, can be a competitive game that can interrupt other players to create what they want to achieve. PVP server, private dragon slay, economic strategy business, etc. If fast teleport change have a bad effect on finding a dragon to slay privately, the person can oppose the suggestion. If ship building business owner predict a loss income of silvers after fast teleport update, the person can oppose the suggestion. If fast teleport increase raid frequency that the villagers don't like it in PVP server, the person can oppose the suggestion. These are just few examples why people would oppose the suggestion. I support fast travelling if the reason is reasonable, for example the NFI PVE to PVP server added portal to teleport, this is a great example of fast travelling because people can swap server faster without consider items transfer on ship(items are separtated on NFI PVE and PVP server unlike SFI). It isn't reasonable to slow down the travelling time if people swap server without the need of items transfer. There might be a merge on NFI and Epic, i support fast travelling teleport swap servers there. But now i don't see any needs to add more teleport mechanic unless people convince me with good reasons.
  7. OP was using one of the rhetorical device called hyperbole. An exaggeration to emphasize the amount of money. Here are some videos of using the word "literally" and the last video quite fit the vibe of wurm🤭. How to Pronounce and Use "Literally" - British English How to use Technically, Literally, Basically, etc. | 5 Adverbs in Under 10 Minutes How (not) to Use LITERALLY Horrible Histories - Literally: The Viking Song I also think precision is important in communicating, but doesn't mean the word can only have one meaning. The precision of using an exaggeration or a rhetorical device in the sentence can be discussed by people.
  8. Okay, i am trying to pretend a multi-billionaire whoever the name is, the first thing i would do is to maintain my crippling Wurm Online addiction. Because i feel like if i do anything not to maintain my crippling Wurm Online addiction, i can't say that i have a crippling Wurm Online addiction. Willing to lose an addiction isn't a crippling addiction. Instead i need to maintain the addiction as much as i can and this would be my first priority. Why did i answer this so seriously 🙄 It supposes to be a fun wild question 🤭
  9. I don't think either the people on PVE and PVP expect their items gonna last forever. One thing can see is that items on PVE can be last longer than their life time if they put their deed upkeep into 200 years. Nothing people can do if the game still stand after 200 years. On PVP instead, people can drain other people's deed upkeep, and loot all the stuff with a method. One thing PVE people are expecting is, if they put a lock on a BSB, they expect no one can access the items inside it and will decay by natural as default. Not something called expect ur stuff last forever. I expect the PVP people doesn't like it because they can't drain the BSB or any methods to loot the stuff. Nothing people can do if the lock is there for now.
  10. Oh, now i understand why people support lockpicking. It's the history of wurm in SFI created lots of stuffs. NFI might need to deal with this one day too. Well, it's true that it's not all about looting. But the lockpicking change decision will lead to a problem in looting mechanic. Can't really change a mechanic for good but also create another problem in this game. There are probably another way to solve the scraps everyone's left behind, but idk how can lockpicking work without create another problem in PVE.
  11. 1) It encourages people to go raided after lockpicking in PVE is a thing, then increase the chance for people to get an utterly raid. 2, 3) People place their locked containers outside a house everywhere, they even named their deed something something hoarder on melody. They don't secured items under a house. They secured items by a simple lock. 4) People should consider when they see a the locked container off deed, there is a chance the owner is on hiatus, sleeping, doing daily chores, etc instead of something just let go by the owner. Also consider some people don't play under a deed. There is a chance the owner will come back, also the owner might not want people to access it at anytime so they put a lock. There is a chance it's not 100% going to decay anyways.
  12. They need to spend more time to distinguish the posts whether it belongs to a suggestion section or a QoL section. Just like this suggestion post move to where it supposes to belong. The current suggestion section can simply do the short video job. Or may be they should pinned a post named Memes in wurm. To show the annoying feature and tedious actions.
  13. They posted a picture on the valrei international: sneak peek at exploration piloting a boat. Shipbuilding is probably the most related skill on the exploration update, benefit u and the community.
  14. Clearly, one side is wrong. Assume everyone involved were online. It would be more clear if people pointed out the mis-information when the mis-information was there already. Stop them at the moment when the mis-info pop up, not later when the justice seems to not on ur side. Other people will assume that is the truth if people skip it or don't speak up. We did good to find out the misunderstanding, so that we can learn from it and avoid these misunderstanding next time. And discussion is the key. So which one told the truth? Would it be possible that someone mentioned its a public slay that someone in ur group or outside the group mentioned it through discord or pm? Do u know the angry red dragon was supposed to be a public slay before u bought it and after u bought it? Through any kinds of channels, no matter its from local, freedom, discord or pm, etc.
  15. Like i said, it isn't about the group break a promise or not, it's about they made choices that would lead to a promise break. And they knew it. They didn't need an election to know the choices they made would lead to a promise break. The finder announced the dragon will be a public slay in freedom chat publicly.
  16. It doesn't matter how good people have organized public slays, how many affords to find a dragon, how helpful to the people who can't slay from their own, how fair to the dragon loots, how end-game content are designed, how good or bad the slaying mechanic, how people dominate the markets and global casts, how people ban or threaten to people, how people bring two topics together. All these reasons are only covering how bad the group's etiquette are on the angry red dragon slay, or just distracting the main point. The main point is, the groups knew the founder announced it will be a public slay for people who near the rift site. However, they still offer a trade and succeed to buy the dragon and turn into a private slay. The knew the choices they made simply lead to a promise break and made the people get frustrated and took away the fun that people near the rift site have expected. It makes people question the group's etiquette seeing from an outsider.
  17. Case study number two: Person F found a dragon become a owner. Person F announced it will be a private slay that invite only who near the rift site(its not a public slay if the owner don't invite all people), i assume it will be 50-100 people. Person G propose to Person F to buy the dragon from Person F. Person G succeed the trade and become the new dragon owner. I don't know if Person G knew Person F have said the private slay only invite the people who near the rift site. But I assume Person G knew because Person G knew a trade opportunity when Person F announced the dragon slay on freedom chat(the slaying was being advertised by the finder in Freedom chat as being a public slaying that all at the rift site were going to be included in as we were all there in the area already). After Person G became a owner, Person G decided to go private slay without included most of the people near the rift site. Person F obviously didn't keep the promises. Person F like silvers more than a promise that can fulfill. Can people still trust Person F? I believe Person F didn't set a condition about I only sell the dragon if u Person G invite people who near the rift site after the owner transfer. If Person F did that, a promises to the people who near the rift site can still be fulfilled. Person G knew Person F made a promise to the people near rift site but still trade with Person F, then Person G decide to go private slay without included most of the people near the rift site. Person G knew the decision would break the fun to the people who near the rite site. And still did that. Can people still be enjoyable with Person G? Of course, only the people that Person G have invited to the private slay. From what i see, People are complaining about the etiquette on dragon slay most of the time. Sometimes suggestions to change a mechanic is a way to avoid facing ur etiquette. Because people can blame the mechanic instead of their own etiquette and behaviour.
  18. From what i understand: Person A and B was searching dragons, Person A found a dragon and committed one of these actions within range of the unique. Person A became 100% owner of the dragon. Person A asked Person B to help Person A pen the dragon. Later, Person A sold the dragons to Person C. Person C became 100% owner of the dragon. Person C invited his group Person D and E to have a private slay. If Person B want to get invited into Person C private slay, Person B have to follow the conditions 1st, 2nd, 3rd. Person B complained Person C should invited to the private slay without any conditions or an more reasonable conditions because Person B helped Person C to close the new cave up. Person A and C were the 100% owner of dragon. They have every rights to invite people or not and sell the dragon or not. Person A sold the dragon, Person B don't have any rights to slay it without Person C invited, because Person C is the 100% new owner, no matter Person B help Person C to close the new cave up or not. That's the mechanic of slaying unique. But when the things that whether its a fair trade or not, its discussable. First, I don't know if Person A had discussed with Person B before Person A sold the dragon, Person A should do that because Person B was helping to search dragons. Person A and Person B should have an agreement before sold the dragon even though Person A are the one who have 100% right to sell the dragon. I don't know even know if Person B got the part of silvers from Person A sold dragons to Person C. If not, i don't know why Person B want to search dragons again with Person A. Second, I don't know if Person C asked Person B to help closing the new cave up or not after Person C was the 100% owner. I assume Person C have asked Person B to help closing the cave up because Person B couldn't do it without the NEW DEED permission controlled by Person C(the Person C slaying group came in and moved it further away and made a new cave for it). So, according to the assumption, Person B helped Person C to secured the dragon by closing the new cave up when Person C 100% owned the dragon. The question is, is it nice that Person C required Person B to constraint Person B to 1 toon and pay 10s to get an invite after Person B helped person C to close the new cave up? Did Person C do anything wrong? No, Person C didn't do anything wrong because Person C 100% owned the dragon and got every rights to invited people or not. Did Person C suggest a fair trade for Person B? Discussable. Can Person A tell us ur part of story? Interested. This situation is like PC on trade chat, Is the dirt 0.01s/k or should be 100s/k. Discussable.
  19. 1. The locked containers are not supposed to be used by community, because it's private, locked, that means they are only for one person or group and not for everyone. Even the gms sacrifice their time to show how important privacy is. Imagine a private dragon slay by a person without any permissions. 2. Simply push and move the locked chests to the place where u can't see under current mechanic, there is a way, work on it. 3. To let people understand what is privacy, some people define wreckage as a nice game look, encourage communication like this. Maybe it will encourage people to unlock the container to other people if they leave after people calling it a mess or a problem. There are always have some purposes that people may not aware. I like the idea too, but the owner of the locked items don't want the items to be used again, that's why put a lock for privacy. Respect their privacy over the desire to loot. If ur desire to loot is over privacy, go to PVP instead. From what i understand why u don't like PVP, u don't want people to loot ur thing and its scary. But at the same time u want to loot other people's private items.
  20. As a new player, if they see locked containers or carts, that means someone have played this game, created something. The more locked carts and containers means more people have played this game. If a new player see the area that simply have only trees and glass, consider it empty and dead, no civilization happened. As an old player like u, if u see abandoned locked container or carts, u said they make the game looks dead to u. But u said if the abandoned locked container or carts make u realise a dead game, u simply quit. But here we are, u are still playing, that means the abandoned locked container or carts didn't make u realised the game is dead. They just make the game looks dead to u. The game look dead and actually dead are two different things. A game looks dead can be an enjoyable game, because it isn't actually dead to u. As an old player like other, some might want the locked container stay what it is, so that one day the owner return and have all the stuffs. or respect the owner choice to let it be a private container and decay as default by nature, or see it as a history of wurm to be remembered and someone has been a part of wurm, or make the archaeologist easier to find a disbanded place to get the cache. Some people don't deed when mining, just make a locked and secured containers to store the ores. Don't want to make holes to their deed or simply want to save more silvers when there are a lock mechanic. The lock mechanic is free, simple, easy to use. Its not clear that the player doesn't want the responsibility to take care of his own stuff when a player lets his deed go down, there are many of reasons. What make it clear is that simply putting a lock meaning the person wants to take care of the his own items. The alts, bank, main are not sufficient. Because they want to store large amount of items in the locked containers like BSB, LSU, BCU, etc. So lock with container is important. The protectionism is for the player who return to wurm, they put a lock to protect the items inside a locked containers as a responsibility of a player to take care of his own items. The protectionism is for the player who are still active playing wurm. The protectionism are mainly for them. About the protectionism to players that will never come back to the game, the players was a part of wurm people, the choice that they have made should be respected, locked container decay as default by nature in PVE servers. Wurm allow people to create impact to others even if u are gone, just like the archaeology.
  21. I know the locked container owner choice is stay silence, even though they never told me about. How do i know? They never told me anything, and that's is called silence and this is a choice. Hello? I didn't hear anything from the owner. Hello owner, can u say something to me? Hello? I respect the choice of stay silence. If they want people to take their stuff, the owner should rename the locked container to free to loot, simply unlock the container or telling people. And that is the responsibility of the locked container owner if they want people to take their stuff. If the locked container owner choose to say "the items inside the locked container can be saved(lockpicking, stealing)" to person B before the locked container is going to decay and become destroyed, then person B can save the locked container. Because the owner give the permission from their words. But usually the owner just unlock the locked container for person B instead of just telling person B u can loot my locked container. This situation happen less than 1% i would say, and it doesn't really make any sense if the owner gave the permission by their mouth but not by the game mechanic(just unlocked the locked container for person B). If the locked container owner choose to not say anything(stay silence) to person B before the locked container is going to decay and become destroyed, then person B shouldn't save(lockpicking, stealing) the locked container. This situation happen 99% of the time. When something is private, locked, that means they are only for one person or group and not for everyone. Let the locked container be a locked container and stay what it is, decay by default as most of the player know it. Stay silence lead to a unlocked container decay as default by nature in PVE servers, as most of the player know this decay mechanic, if people choose to stay silence, they choose to let the unlocked container decay by default. So 99% i opposed to someone saving the locked container before it decays and becomes destroyed. If u ask me is this such a waste? Yes, but the choices of the locked container owner come first, locked and not for everyone. I respect they stay silence and respect they put a lock on it to make it private.
  22. The 95% what Rudie said are the players who doesn't come back and don't even say anything about wurm anymore. So are they still have a voice to be a majority or minority of wurm anymore? The 95% who quit are 100% not playing this game anymore, the 95% are just like the normal people who are not play wurm. Can the normal people outside of wurm be a part of majority or minority of wurm people? What playerbase we have are the one who support change the mechanic of locked containers and support the locked containers mechanic stay as they are. And they are certainly not 95% and 5%. I hope people can see the number trick that elentari have implemented. What elentari was focusing on are the 95% who quit and 5% who return, we should focus on the player who are still playing this game and the 5%(still playing) who return. For people to understand this situation more, i will make an example that may not represent the true number, but not its certainly not 95% and 5% by using common sense. Like assume they are 51% of support a change of game design, and 49% of support a stay of game design on locked container mechanic. And this is just an example for better understanding, might not represent any true number. At the end of the day, all design aspects are focused for your player who are still playing this game, not the ~99.99999% who doesn't play this game, that's common sense. If the majority of wurm people who are still playing wurm support the 5% of "once played wurm but not currently playing wurm" playerbase return and can access to locked containers that they have made and expected, then the locked mechanic should stay as what it is now.
  23. Will let the locked containers to decay and become destroyed naturally, stay whatever it is, no lockpick, steal, or destroy it by lava intentionally by other players. Because the locked container owner didn't say anything(stay silence) about how to deal with the locked container. Silence is a choice and made by the owner. Stay silence lead to a decay as default by nature in PVE servers and I repect the owner choice. I won't say lockpicking, stealing a locked container are saving. I see it as a disrespectful behaviour to the owner choice on PVE servers. But I see it as a respectful behaviour if people do it on PVP servers because that's the core of the PVP. If the locked container owner rename it to free to loot or free to do whatever u want, that's an owner choice and of course will loot all the stuff inside it if the mechanic allow it, not even a single drop will left if the stuffs are good.
  24. The rules are there for reasons, and i am keep giving reasons to why items in locked container should stay what it is, why the rules should still stand, no lockpick, steal, or destroy it by any methods besides nature decaying. Lets have a summary. New players and returners can still enjoy the items in locked containers after hiatus, sleeping, doing daily chores, so that they are more willing to stay in this game. 99% of people don't know when the owner return to this game to access the locked container and 99% of people don't know the locked container owner is actually quit. So, can't say its abandoned and the locked container is still owned by the owner. It's still a private locked container. Privacy is a core of wurm, like private slaying, hermit style place. People who decide to play off deed or off building, they can enjoy access the items from a locked container, a protected container without other people looting. And that's the fun part of PVE server. Show respect to choice of the locked container owner, as default the container decay by the PVE nature, if they didn't leave a message on how to deal with the locked container.