Sign in to follow this  
Grumpysmith

Priest / Religion overhaul

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Grumpysmith said:

I agree with the removal of Player Gods from Epic.  Leave them on Freedom.  There is no place for player Gods in the lore regarding the reasons the groups are fighting each other.  On Freedom, it simply doesn't matter.  If someone wants an item enchanting priest they can choose the one with the spells they want.  If they want a priest with spells for helping with Unique battles they can pick the one that best suits their needs.  The same for breeders.

Yes, lets lock out player Gods from those players who bust their behinds to get them and spend all that time doing missions and lets give them to those that do absolutely nothing to earn them and have absolutely no relation to them.

 

You do realize that Player Gods are an inherent feature of Epic, and that they are a product of the efforts of Epic players exclusively, right?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Angelklaine said:

Yes, lets lock out player Gods from those players who bust their behinds to get them and spend all that time doing missions and lets give them to those that do absolutely nothing to earn them and have absolutely no relation to them.

 

You do realize that Player Gods are an inherent feature of Epic, and that they are a product of the efforts of Epic players exclusively, right?

Yes as a long-term Epic Player who has never set a pixel created foot on Freedom I recognize all of what you just said.  Keeping a badly conceived and implemented feature which will only continue to destroy any temporary balance achieved by the devs is not a long term benefit to the game.  This would just be one more addition to the game, that once implemented, was determined to not be in the best long-term interests of the game.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/30/2017 at 9:32 PM, Retrograde said:

Our focus on this is not to change the foundation mechanics of priests, but rather balancing of spells, passive abilities and how they all work together,

 

A major part of our focus will be addressing player gods and the random generation of spells leading to combinations that are overpowered, and also looking at spell sets of the original gods as each spell individually to see if it's balanced properly.

I assume the answer is yes, but I would just like some clarification:

Is CC is going to offer religion conversions (with faith intact) for priests who's spell set may be affected by changes? 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i belive spells like LT and ms should not need 2 prists...

Edited by Sila
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea of player gods, but leaving so much of the generation process to RNG feels inherently broken (why is Nathan a BL again? :P ). Also, it feels like the potential exists for too many player gods. Spellsets seem too broad; balance aside, at some point player gods will wind up being cookie-cutter duplicates, with no real differences.

 

One way to mitigate this would be to pre-design a certain number of highly-specialized god-roles (split between BL and WL). Ascending players would randomly fill empty roles, and thus reveal these specialized powers. Once the Pantheon is full, perhaps there could be support for exiling inactive player-gods, or Valrei combat with player-gods to dethrone them.

 

So, instead of player-god Nathan, there could be Nathan, god of thunder, who could at some point be usurped by a new player, who would then be the god of thunder. The spells/bonuses wouldn't change, regardless of who filled the role.

 

The original gods could remain much as they are: more general-purpose, but not as narrowly powerful.

Edited by Roccandil
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

make it so the player who won god status can be a priest after that god and craft, basically a perm champ but without the extra DR and stat gains. They keep the demi-god bonuses. 
Nobody else can be this god, doesnt join valrei missions etc. Just rewards the player who got it.

This should be an Epic only change, since we're splitting pvp/freedom now, freedom shouldn't suffer the loss. 
I do think tho on top of this, you should take grumpys idea of allowing priests to link across the board for same spells.

Edited by Mclavin
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Libila-Priests on freedom, like Tosiek and Nathan.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/30/2017 at 8:32 PM, Retrograde said:

Just to clarify, as I feel some have gotten the wrong idea here:

 

Our focus on this is not to change the foundation mechanics of priests, but rather balancing of spells, passive abilities and how they all work together,

 

So, essentially you're not going to 'fix' priests. It's going to remain a couched thing only for certain select people (Whales with money) who are willing to pay for an extra account(or more) to acquire a 'edge' over other players and allow them to hold dominance over certain abilities in the game. Wouldn't want to lose all that money from alts and have the true numbers of WO show up. Needs more padding apparently...

Why even bother lying about an overhaul/fix? If this was just going to become a 'We're looking closer at certain spells to hopefully find some bugs/things that need light/tiny adjustments'...you could've just said you wanted some input on that instead of getting people's hopes up...

Edited by Corsan
Missed an apostrophe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2017‎-‎10‎-‎30 at 11:13 AM, Angelklaine said:

It isnt our job to find or protect Code Club's revenue. Thats what they do. For us, it is to find better ways for us to entretain ourselves. After all, that is what we pay for.

 

A battery is not entertainment: Its a necesity for our entertainment. It is the support character you pay for to use your support character to your main. So in order to have a fully functional priest, you need 3 characters: A priest, a non priest to build what the priest may need, and a battery.

 

Now I can understand the fact that Priest is a choice and that the choice of living with the penalties is all mine. But being told I need a 2nd priest just so I can cast all my spells and nothing else its just silly. The mechanic was intended to work on a social environment, and with how limited the amount of players the game has now, it forces the creation of batteries. It should be revisited.

 

 

A 3rd member of your party is merely the cost of doing business, it is not to enrich the QoL but it does improve the thickness of your wallet..hence the cost of doing business must be paid...

and we all want CC to profit and continue freely updating our most fav game don't we... 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Corsan said:

 

So, essentially you're not going to 'fix' priests. It's going to remain a couched thing only for certain select people (Whales with money) who are willing to pay for an extra account(or more) to acquire a 'edge' over other players and allow them to hold dominance over certain abilities in the game. Wouldn't want to lose all that money from alts and have the true numbers of WO show up. Needs more padding apparently...

Why even bother lying about an overhaul/fix? If this was just going to become a 'We're looking closer at certain spells to hopefully find some bugs/things that need light/tiny adjustments'...you could've just said you wanted some input on that instead of getting people's hopes up...

 

 

Those with multiple accounts are not 'whales', they are value-added customers. Same applies with anything in life, gaming included.  If they change it so priests are valuable as 'main' characters due to whatever mechanic changes, then the secondary and alt accounts dry up. You think new players will fill that huge void? #nope.

 

What the hell does the 'true' numbers matter anyways? We all know it stinks, and its progressively getting worse. What in the world would you have to gain by losing subscriptions?

 

Everyone wants access to everything with 1 subscription. There are few things you cannot do in Wurm without sacrificing something for another gain (ex. priesthood). You are given the option to use your in-game time and organization skills to mitigate those disadvantages.  Beyond that, you are given another opportunity to simply 'buy-out' your lack of time by creating multiple accounts.  This is no different that in some MMO, expecting to be a giant tanky meat shield, but then complaining you cant heal yourself. So you either find other players to do it for you, or buy a second account if you want. You are only limited by your short-sighted options, and then crippled by 99% of this player bases complete and utter lack of understanding basic business practice. Besides, what's the difference between a group of players who have a few priests, and some guy who has 6 premium accounts?  Can anyone actually tell me what advantage that one player has over a group besides better self-sufficiency?  Or what exactly he/she does to 'block' you from doing? It's really nothing but convenience.

 

Religion and priesthood are terribly implemented, but there's a cost of business here. If you cannot understand that, or that a religion overhaul is not only extremely risky but low priority (at least in my professional opinion), then i dont know what to tell you.

 

This thread is hilarious.

My next suggestion based on these complainants logic: "Sleep powder should be 2 per IP and removed for multiple premium accounts"

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Shazaam said:

Those with multiple accounts are not 'whales', they are value-added customers. Same applies with anything in life, gaming included.  If they change it so priests are valuable as 'main' characters due to whatever mechanic changes, then the secondary and alt accounts dry up. You think new players will fill that huge void? #nope.

 

What the hell does the 'true' numbers matter anyways? We all know it stinks, and its progressively getting worse. What in the world would you have to gain by losing subscriptions?

 

Everyone wants access to everything with 1 subscription. There are few things you cannot do in Wurm without sacrificing something for another gain (ex. priesthood). You are given the option to use your in-game time and organization skills to mitigate those disadvantages.  Beyond that, you are given another opportunity to simply 'buy-out' your lack of time by creating multiple accounts.  This is no different that in some MMO, expecting to be a giant tanky meat shield, but then complaining you cant heal yourself. So you either find other players to do it for you, or buy a second account if you want. You are only limited by your short-sighted options, and then crippled by 99% of this player bases complete and utter lack of understanding basic business practice. Besides, what's the difference between a group of players who have a few priests, and some guy who has 6 premium accounts?  Can anyone actually tell me what advantage that one player has over a group besides better self-sufficiency?  Or what exactly he/she does to 'block' you from doing? It's really nothing but convenience.

 

Religion and priesthood are terribly implemented, but there's a cost of business here. If you cannot understand that, or that a religion overhaul is not only extremely risky but low priority (at least in my professional opinion), then i dont know what to tell you.

 

This thread is hilarious.

My next suggestion based on these complainants logic: "Sleep powder should be 2 per IP and removed for multiple premium accounts"


Thanks for your rallying defense of priesthood as it currently stands.

When you go through life looking for profits profits profits, all you find is profits for awhile, then things start drying up for whatever reason. I'm not saying priesting in this game is one of those reasons. It may be, it may not be.

To quote Princess Leia "If money is all that you love, then that's what you'll receive."

Maybe money is only one factor in a grander scheme. The game has to remain fun. Maybe that person who wanted to play alone (for whatever reason) wanted to be self sufficient. Why are you against that? Maybe they'd find their fun in that, be maintaining their own place...and someone would wander through and they'd meet a new random stranger. Maybe that day they felt like chatting. Maybe they decided to start discussing things with them. Maybe that chance meeting could lead to them getting together in real life at some point. Who knows. There are possibilities. Why do you want to crush them?

Yeah, yeah, they need money to make the game function. You know what's the best way to get people to part with their money? Make things fun for them. Then they aren't thinking of the cost/benefit ratio as much. They are too busy having fun. You know what's less fun? Having fewer options. Let's just block the ability to access this whole section of a game, why? Because we felt like it due to some outdated thought process.

Yes, it's poorly implemented. I was hoping their talking about changing it meant they really were talking about changing it. Apparently they weren't. That's fine, I'm used to being disappointed in game companies. I've taken my money elsewhere from a few over the years. I'm sure I'm not the only person. You know what dropping subscription numbers/a lot less players usually means? That's usually more and more of those people coming to that same conclusion. Most of them don't bother saying anything. They just leave. This game did some weird thing where they split their numbers a lot of times...intentionally (Multiple servers, then WU). I'm guessing that probably had an effect. Is it the death knell? No, I doubt it. But it's certainly a sign.

But yeah, let's just keep everything as it is, it's all hunky dory, nothing to see here...(Soon™)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think I have ever played a game where one character had access to every spell/ability in the game.  There were always choices to be made.  Those choices led to how my characters were developed.  Some allowed you to play more than one char at the same time as we do here.  Some didn't.  I won't say there isn't a game that allows it all with no limitations but I do not know of one. 

 

As for the rest, well my love life in game or out has nothing to do with what abilities my characters in game have.  I have met friends that will be life long friends.  That has nothing to do with my char in game or what I can offer them in game.  If that is all they are interested in, that is one short sighted person.  What is going to happen when the game closes.  Guess that would close the relationship.  Oh well.

Edited by Pashka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Psalamon said:

 

A 3rd member of your party is merely the cost of doing business, it is not to enrich the QoL but it does improve the thickness of your wallet..hence the cost of doing business must be paid...

and we all want CC to profit and continue freely updating our most fav game don't we... 

 

Or maybe instead of someone having a Main, a Paaweelr and a battety to cast LT with, they will have a Main, a Paaweelr, and a Vynora to compliment their spell repertoire. The money from subscriptions for alt doesnt instantly dissapear: If I can pay for 3 accounts, it doesnt mean I am struggling to pay 3 and would rather pay for two. It means I can pay for 3 and I had to put a slot on a battery. I would wager that people with multiple accounts wouldnt necessarily close down their batteries, but would swap for a more viable religion. I for one dont have a Vynora because I would need yet another battery, having a Paaw myself. But If I didnt need an extra battery? Heck yes, I would pick one up myself.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shazaam said:

Those with multiple accounts are not 'whales' they are value-added customers.

You do realise that that is pretty much the definition of a whale right?

 

Your argument has one key flaw, free alts.  A free alt adds nothing to the game (at all), acts as a drain on server resources and contributes nothing to CC's wallet.  Anyone maining a priest currently just uses a free alt to get unavoidable chores.  Allthis does is make playing a priest less palatable (thus reducing the number of subscriptions).

 

Basic buisiness sense (and game design) dictates that this situation is a very poor one.  So your most fiscally viable option is to ease up the restrictions on priests somewhat [removing them would make no sense, but allowing them to do exactly the same thing as a free alt (with an effective skillcap on construction/continuing/imping/non-canon harvest actions) would be reasonable]; thus netting you more people willing to play them (I can't see this forcing people not to keep alts).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Pashka said:

I don't think I have ever played a game where one character had access to every spell/ability in the game.  There were always choices to be made.

 

Except we're not allowed access to ANY spells. We simply can't even priest up without it thwarting other things.

We're only allowed to throw things at the gods using saccing. If there were a god, do you think they'd want you donating your trash to them?

I'm not asking for 'every skill'. I just want to be able to do some of this stuff. (I'd personally be fine with collapsing tiles on my own if I just went mag). My earlier suggestion involved most of the PvE things because I would love to have access to all of the non-combat related stuff. But there's a whole 'We need to force people to socialize' thing here...or stick with the people make mass alt armies to do it all themselves, and therefore they are paying the game a lot more...yay-thing going on...why that was even allowed as a way to 'get around' this, I don't understand...considering the intent was to force socialization...but you're not forcing it when you let people get around it anyway...they must've noticed 'Oh, we can make money' and let it slide for awhile. Then it became the new 'normal'.

 

18 minutes ago, Pashka said:

As for the rest, well my love life in game or out has nothing to do with what abilities my characters in game have.  I have met friends that will be life long friends.  That has nothing to do with my char in game or what I can offer them in game.  If that is all they are interested in, that is one short sighted person.  What is going to happen when the game closes.  Guess that would close the relationship.  Oh well.

 

I wasn't necessarily referencing love lives....but yes, some people do meet through video games. I met a few 'couples' while I was over on FFXIV who met in-game/ended up together. I was referencing the ability to make a friend out of the blue. You were provided those opportunities. Why are we trying to block people from those chances? Maybe some person joins up with Wurm, they love horses, they start taking care of them...they become a Fo priest because they love all things and can genesis(I think)...then they maybe lose access to other things they were enjoying because they became a priest. Maybe they then lose interest and leave...instead of finding a village to join and 'help out' around. What was the point in making that person leave instead of breaking a restriction?

But yes, if the game goes under, imagine all these people around the world you won't be able to talk to anymore (Unless you found another platform...). Do people want that for Wurm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Etherdrifter said:

You do realise that that is pretty much the definition of a whale right?

 

Your argument has one key flaw, free alts.  A free alt adds nothing to the game (at all), acts as a drain on server resources and contributes nothing to CC's wallet.  Anyone maining a priest currently just uses a free alt to get unavoidable chores.  Allthis does is make playing a priest less palatable (thus reducing the number of subscriptions).

 

Basic buisiness sense (and game design) dictates that this situation is a very poor one.  So your most fiscally viable option is to ease up the restrictions on priests somewhat [removing them would make no sense, but allowing them to do exactly the same thing as a free alt (with an effective skillcap on construction/continuing/imping/non-canon harvest actions) would be reasonable]; thus netting you more people willing to play them (I can't see this forcing people not to keep alts).

 

Priests were never palatable (pvp excluded). What are you talking about, no one mains a priest and uses free alts to do 'chores' in the game? It also isn't a server drain, or a DB drain, or any drain whatsoever. Stop making things up.

 

You have 0 'basic business sense', and leave it at that.  Do not say you understand the financial issues resulting from such a change, and make up wild accusations that doing so would magically help subscription numbers or other inane comments. I'm telling you right now the "alt-priest army" is something CC wont touch, and if they do, it's all negative income. You follow me thus far? You cannot bring new value for a specific customer base while marginalizing another revenue stream (or group).  I'm also saying, if they spend the god-awful amount of time they do on development cycles and then prioritize this, it's going to do NOTHING to stop a decline in subscriptions.

 

You guys are so dense. Just admit you two want priest spells with no restrictions, and are too cheap to spend a little extra money, or too lazy to do it in game currently. If anything, a short term solution would be to ADD a few 200+ faith spells that do something cool but not over the top, so at least some premium adds up and continues. Who cares if you cant do it without paying, if it has no impact on your game-play? IF it added value, i'm sure either i'd resub some batteries, or alliance members would resub their expired priests.

 

I'm on no one's side here. It's like both sides talk about how to treat cancer with naturopathic 'medicine', instead of diagnosing, planning and executing a real treatment plan.

 

tl;dr - This thread is retarded.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*Cheap unworthy snipe removed*

 

Heal

This used to remove disease, a functionality that was quite useful at large events such as impalongs and rifts.  Could we get this back please?

 

Wild Growth

The unpredictable radius makes casting it quite destructive to groves unless said grove is fully pruned and containg withered.  Some way of choosing if you want to remove withered trees or cycle them to young would be really helpful

 

Lurker in the Woods

There has been widespread agreemeent that this spell has little to no real use at the moment; buffing it to be able to track specific (non-unique) creatures over a longer distance might make it much more popular

 

Morning Fog

This spell doesn't really add anything to the game as it stands; allowing it to be cast on a container to create a small amount (0.25kg) of water might be a nice way to go.

 

Bear Paws

To my knowledge this just increases your unarmed damage output; I assume it was aimed at being paired with oakshell to allow folks to wander around with no weapons/armour.  The trouble is that the buff it gives it just too insignificant to be of any use, this might be better as a "cast on pet" kind of spell (removes the cr nerf of said pet as well as providing a damage boost?)

 

Ward

This spell has 0 use in PvE (has no effect anywhere).  Allowing it to be cast as a buff that mimics the fo animal immunity would make it much more useful for community priests.

 

Holy Crop

The effects of this spell are really pointless at the moment; buffing it in some way to also give a bonus to followers (maybe full food/water/fccp?) and domain (flower growth?) would at least ensure it gets cast occasionally.

 

Venom

No-one ever uses venom; there is just no point in doing so since LT or Flame/Frostbrand are far superior.  Buffing poison (in a PvE setting) would definitely be a good place to start when fixing this spell (also dropping favour cost to 60!).

Edited by Etherdrifter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Etherdrifter said:

Back to the topic at hand I think; no-one is going to make ground with the guy above because he simply has too much to lose.

 

I have 3 different priests, and 4 batteries. All of which are unsubbed. Explain to me what i have to lose?  I'd probably enjoy a reason to quit for good this time. or not.

 

No one seems any thought process beyond "i want this!!! it would be cool!!1" when suggesting things. Try explaining how and why they wont work to people, and they lose their minds. Same applies in the "Im missing everything" thread.  Ignorance is bliss i guess.

 

Welcome to Dunning-Kruger Online!

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Shazaam said:

 

I have 3 different priests, and 4 batteries. All of which are unsubbed. Explain to me what i have to lose?  I'd probably enjoy a reason to quit for good this time. or not.

 

No one seems any thought process beyond "i want this!!! it would be cool!!1" when suggesting things. Try explaining how and why they wont work to people, and they lose their minds. Same applies in the "Im missing everything" thread.  Ignorance is bliss i guess.

 

Welcome to Dunning-Kruger Online!

 

 

 

Your elitism is a potential solution to the Fermi Paradox. :P

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Roccandil said:

Your elitism is a potential solution to the Fermi Paradox. :P

 

what

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't know there was a correlation between some "do aliens exist?" theory, and a business risk assessment explanation that correlates customer satisfaction and purchasing.

 

If elitism is just trying to explain something to someone who wont listen to reason, then i dont know what else to do. I've got no cake in this game, so carry on!

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Delacroix said:

 

what

 

So glad you asked. :P The essence of elitism is thinking that one's self is smarter/better-looking/faster/whatever than others, which very often coincides with thinking that one is better than one's potential offspring. From Nature's perspective, however, that isn't survivable/selectable; species are far more likely to survive when members are willing to be parents who sacrifice themselves for their children.

 

Given our experience with the human race, however, it appears that technological advancement coincides with elitism, which indicates it's possibly inevitable that a sentient species will progress to the point that its individuals (or collective) all believe they are the biggest thing around, and either destroy themselves through sheer hubris, or gets blindsided and obliterated by something in the universe bigger than themselves.

 

Anyway. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Roccandil said:

 

So glad you asked. :P The essence of elitism is thinking that one's self is smarter/better-looking/faster/whatever than others, which very often coincides with thinking that one is better than one's potential offspring. From Nature's perspective, however, that isn't survivable/selectable; species are far more likely to survive when members are willing to be parents who sacrifice themselves for their children.

 

Given our experience with the human race, however, it appears that technological advancement coincides with elitism, which indicates it's possibly inevitable that a sentient species will progress to the point that its individuals (or collective) all believe they are the biggest thing around, and either destroy themselves through sheer hubris, or gets blindsided and obliterated by something in the universe bigger than themselves.

 

Anyway. :P

 

the '"what" was because, contextually, it makes no sense. His post is to elitism what Family Guy is to wit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Delacroix said:

 

the '"what" was because, contextually, it makes no sense. His post is to elitism what Family Guy is to wit.

 

Well, it's not just the one post. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this