Bottom of the barrel, Let all players be priest

[Etherdrifter 2,517]

On 12/21/2019 at 10:42 PM, Arishok said:

@Dranana1

I firmly believe the arcane should not become mundane.  

Runes already did this.  The process is already underway.  It's a travesty, but one the Devs have been committing for a while now.

 

Need proof?  Animal age reversion rune.  A unique runic spell un-castable by priests.

[Wargasm 1,927]

No rune is "proof" that the devs are turning away from priests.  Runes consume limited resources, and require effort to obtain.  Much more effort than walking to an altar, sacrificing 6-7 garlic and waiting 30 seconds on an unlimited basis.

 

Oh and BTW, if you care for an animal, it never dies.  No runes required, no priest required.

[Etherdrifter 2,517]

2 hours ago, Wargasm said:

No rune is "proof" that the devs are turning away from priests.  Runes consume limited resources, and require effort to obtain.  Much more effort than walking to an altar, sacrificing 6-7 garlic and waiting 30 seconds on an unlimited basis.

 

Oh and BTW, if you care for an animal, it never dies.  No runes required, no priest required.

Surely you'd argue that CoC should be a rune if effort should be proportional to reward?

 

My argument, as it has been from day 1, is that runes should have been new spells, possibly using a material or crafted component.  Making them crafter exclusive (go grind FC, JS or SC using only creation ticks some time) was a huge kick in the teeth.

 

We'll agree to disagree here as there is no common ground.

Edited December 26, 2019 by Etherdrifter

[Wargasm 1,927]

No, your issue, as it has been with every single suggestion you have made, is to in some way give more to priests because you feel they're gimped, not able to play the full game and somehow diminished by the rune system.

 

Runes are a QoL thing.  CoC is not.  Next?

[Etherdrifter 2,517]

1 hour ago, Wargasm said:

No, your issue, as it has been with every single suggestion you have made, is to in some way give more to priests because you feel they're gimped, not able to play the full game and somehow diminished by the rune system.

 

Runes are a QoL thing.  CoC is not.  Next?

Your presumption on my motives never ceases to amaze me.

 

How do is CoC not QoL?  It performs no additional function and merely acts as a time reduction.

 

That would be the very definition of QoL.

 

No magic on wurm is *essential*, it is all QoL.  Folks just think it's essential because they've forgotten what it's like playing the game without it.

[Wargasm 1,927]

1 minute ago, Etherdrifter said:

No magic on wurm is *essential*, it is all QoL. 

 

I could make the same argument for having a deed, owning a boat, or even simply having built my own house.  

[Etherdrifter 2,517]

22 minutes ago, Wargasm said:

 

I could make the same argument for having a deed, owning a boat, or even simply having built my own house.  

Indeed you could.

 

Thus attempting to differentiate two aspects of the game as either QoL or not QoL is futile.

 

I think the argument you wanted to make is "magic brings more convenience than runes".  Though this also falls short, as utility in a sandbox is contextual.

[Wargasm 1,927]

Oh so you think we're agreeing on something?  No, we're not.

 

You think priests should be able to do everything.  Including "casting" runes.

I think, like 90% of other veteran wurmians, that one character being able to do EVERYTHING... is bad for the economy, bad for the game in general.  

[Madnath 3,113]

Preist spells are fine and runes are balanced to be only one rune per item if player attached. Just seems messy and sloppy to dump a load of weird spells onto priests across the board. Giving priest the runes as spells just makes an even larger gap between crafter and priest, which is what this suggestion wants to get rid of, no?

[Etherdrifter 2,517]

13 hours ago, Wargasm said:

Oh so you think we're agreeing on something?  No, we're not.

 

You think priests should be able to do everything.  Including "casting" runes.

I think, like 90% of other veteran wurmians, that one character being able to do EVERYTHING... is bad for the economy, bad for the game in general.  

I see business is just booming under such grand design.  Generally speaking, as a "veteran" player (I've certainly been around longer than you), I've argued for priests to be de-alted.  To gate spells behind skills priests can level, to introduce more useful spells, and to eliminate the annoyance of being forced to multi-box as a priest.

 

 

The trouble is, while it is bad for the economy when one character can do anything, it is just as bad for the economy when the things a player can do are not in equilibrium.

 

 

Let us take the simplified model of an adventurer and a thief.

 

The adventurer can do everything except open certain doors.  These doors are non-essential, but convenient.  The thief can only open doors, and some of those doors stay open for a long time after a thief opens them.  There are essential paths the thief cannot navigate without an adventurer.

 

While the thief does have a very useful skill, they don't look economically viable do they?  Here the economy goes Thief->Adventurer (most high level adventurers will, of course, just use thief alts).

 

 

Now picture adding in doors only adventurers can open, lockpicks that only adventurers can craft that open thief doors, and modifying how thief doors work to make sure they stay open longer.  At this point, the reasonable conclusion would be that thieves are slowly being phased out of the game.

[Oblivionnreaver 5,174]

7 minutes ago, Etherdrifter said:

and to eliminate the annoyance of being forced to multi-box as a priest.

are you forced to? i wasn't aware, and i'm a priest main. the only thing you can't do really is imp and you can just trade casts for an imp or have subordinates friends do that. imping things is beneath holy ones such as myself

 

runes have pretty much all the meh spells in the game on them, i don't see why you'd care about them so much. they use soul depth to attach which priests usually have a lot of so they can use them anyway.

[Arishok 92]

@EtherdrifterI appreciate the further explanation of your position.  I wasn't following you quite accurately.  
 

I agree with what you are saying, 

 

However, I do like the mechanic of runes.  That they themselves are gated behind challenge, limited use, dependent upon multiple skill sets, and not guaranteed.   
 

Having said that, they are arguably in place as a circumvent to priests while priests are still hamstrung from the basics others enjoy.  
 

The lonely class in a classless system.   Each attempt I explore to imagine a change to this scenario inevitably results in a butcher knife cutting off huge chunks of player base.  
 

This is a mess that was created, and players have invested heavily in to this mechanic as the structure was provided to them.  
 

I still stand by the position that spells should not be universally achievable without commiserate sacrifice, and I am considering Ether’s position that the change has already begun.  

[Wargasm 1,927]

5 hours ago, Etherdrifter said:

I see business is just booming under such grand design. 

 

There are many good reasons that people have left the game.  I don't count priesthood and the restrictions that come with it to be among them.  I could also counter this ridiculous claim by pointing to the increased population decline after the "priest overhaul" that allows them to continue unfinished items and build houses etc.  Seems to me that the numbers decline more sharply after priest restrictions were loosened.

 

5 hours ago, Etherdrifter said:

Generally speaking, as a "veteran" player (I've certainly been around longer than you), I've argued for priests to be de-alted. 

 

Yes, and I've watched you whine for changes like this through my entire Wurm career.  First it was "Fo is gimp, Vyn has all the enchants."  Then it was "Nahjo OP, only Fo should have LT!".  You have since come up with some of the most asinine suggestions, some of which are laughable.  

 

5 hours ago, Etherdrifter said:

it is just as bad for the economy when the things a player can do are not in equilibrium.

 

False.  

 

5 hours ago, Etherdrifter said:

Let us take the simplified model of an adventurer and a thief.

 

"Simplified" and irrelevant.  Your "thief" can only unlock doors.  That would paint a picture of priests only being able to cast spells.  Can't even farm, can't even saw planks, can't even chip bricks. In the imaginary world that you profess priests to (still) be in, you would have us believe that they live such a tortured existence,  yet vigilant in their pursuit of independence.... yeah I can write stories too.

 

You need to do better to convince us why a severely declined subscription base needs to be cut even further by allowing every player to be a priest.  (From 5 to 2, in my personal situation)

You are clearly prejudice thinking a character is "independent" for not being able to cast spells, but is not considered "independent" because they cannot improve tools/boats/etc.

 

[Etherdrifter 2,517]

@Wargasm

 

*Yawn*

 

Correlation isn't casuation; go figure that out and get back to me.

 

And I've watched you bawl "muh money" over QoL changes for years.  "Wurm Career" clearly bespeaks someone who thinks far too much of themselves, and really does suit you.

 

Go look up basic economics some time, seriously.  You clearly lack any reading in this field, and it really shows.  Digital economies are quite interesting.  Read the part about player need and player laziness driving economy.

 

The thief can move and jump, so can the adventurer.  You've deliberately avoided the point the example tries to make, a telling point.

 

Tell me wargasm, do you use priest alts for your enchants?  No need to answer, you've already said you do lots of times.  So your own actions lend weight to my argument.

 

Also...  There is no "us" wargasm, there is just you.  You're not a mouthpiece for any higher order, not do you speak for "veteran players".  The only person you speak for is yourself.

[Wargasm 1,927]

2 hours ago, Etherdrifter said:

Go look up basic economics some time, seriously.  You clearly lack any reading in this field, and it really shows.  Digital economies are quite interesting.  Read the part about player need and player laziness driving economy.

 

Economy is irrelevant if you're playing by yourself.  If that's what you're really going for, I recommend Wurm Unlimited.

 

2 hours ago, Etherdrifter said:

The thief can move and jump, so can the adventurer.  You've deliberately avoided the point the example tries to make, a telling point.

 

Then why don't you elaborate on your point?  You were emphasizing that a thief can do one single thing and the adventurer does EVERYTHING else.  It is phrased in such a way to suggest the thief is useless except for that one thing.  But if you want to sit here and exchange insults instead, we can do that.

 

2 hours ago, Etherdrifter said:

Tell me wargasm, do you use priest alts for your enchants?

 

I play 5 characters, and three of them can enchant.  That doesn't mean they don't each perform other functions on a regular basis.  

 

2 hours ago, Etherdrifter said:

Also...  There is no "us" wargasm, there is just you.  You're not a mouthpiece for any higher order, not do you speak for "veteran players".  The only person you speak for is yourself.

 

Thank you for clarifying.  Now if you're done correcting grammar and resorting to personal insults.... I'll quote from my own post above to get you to focus on the topic at hand...

 

4 hours ago, Wargasm said:

You need to do better to convince us why a severely declined subscription base needs to be cut even further by allowing every player to be a priest.  (From 5 to 2, in my personal situation)

You are clearly prejudice thinking a character is "independent" for not being able to cast spells, but is not considered "independent" because they cannot improve tools/boats/etc.

 

[gorgian 181]

On 12/26/2019 at 10:49 AM, Wargasm said:

Oh and BTW, if you care for an animal, it never dies.  No runes required, no priest required.

 

I'd just want to point out they do died. but it takes an extremely long time for them to die. YEARS!!!

[Etherdrifter 2,517]

49 minutes ago, Wargasm said:

Thank you for clarifying.  Now if you're done correcting grammar and resorting to personal insults.... I'll quote from my own post above to get you to focus on the topic at hand...

 

 

What's good for the goose...

 

Regardless, now some semblance of civility has been restored.

 

The thief example was based on a very simple model with tacit assumptions built in.  I'm hardly going to lay out a full schematic for an example.

 

To quote myself, I have argued...

11 hours ago, Etherdrifter said:

To gate spells behind skills priests can level, to introduce more useful spells, and to eliminate the annoyance of being forced to multi-box as a priest.

 

I am attempting to right one long standing issue that even the dev who worked on it openly stated was incomplete and didn't work.

 

Note: independence here is what I'd consider "free player" level of play.  If I need to log my free alt on to do something (whose only economic impact is the bulk market, which my priest already does better), then there is an independence issue.

 

Being able to remove a tree on my lawn, cut down a shriveled bush, mine out a blocked tile, or dig up tar for a lantern would definitely fall under my definition of  lack of independence.

 

Being able to imp items over effective skill level 20, craft wagons, or even large ships DEFINITELY does not.

 

 

I am also arguing that enchants are a one time expense, re-imps are definitely not.