Sign in to follow this  
Darnok

Darnok's creature suggestions

Recommended Posts

Also in regards to equalizing the playing field, a player who has played for a year, five, six, twelve, sixteen years more than you should have and maintain that advantage, because people are rewarded for their effort. Killing off their livestock just means they'll be there to steal all the fresh spawns quicker and more efficient than you could anyway, cycle repeats. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Blazecraze said:

So if you take a break from the game for a week, whether its work or personal reasons, you come back and the animals you've spent 3 years breeding to get the names you like, colours, traits etc, the money you've spent on enchanted tiles etc is all gone because the games very short winter has come and gone during your IRL activities? 

Most of these animals can live through winter IRL perfectly fine for decades, not every landscape has grass that dies during winter, and all it would do is trouble players who can't dedicate every day or every week to the game as well as increase to what is already a somewhat non realistic game, instead of adding realism. 

 

I wrote about making the winter harsh, the rest of the year would work as before.

Before going for a week break, you can bring animals into the stables and leave them a lot of hay.

 

Edited by Darnok

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Darnok said:

I suggest to solve this problem like that... animals that are outside during winter should get sick and die.

Grass should not grow in winter, so if animal eats everything from a given tile, it starts to starve.

 

So instead of suggesting "ensure wild animals spawns are fixed or increased" you are suggesting "if i can't have any, i want everyone else's animals to die, then it will be fair"?

That would mean that someone who has only 2 horses on their tiny deed would still have them dead after a weeks vacation while someone who has a massive deed and 200 animals would come back to some breeding stock remaining?

 

I still don't see how this fixes anything regarding the original issue. The solution is "fix the spawns" and not "if i can't have any, neither should anyone else".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Locath said:

 

So instead of suggesting "ensure wild animals spawns are fixed or increased" you are suggesting "if i can't have any, i want everyone else's animals to die, then it will be fair"?

That would mean that someone who has only 2 horses on their tiny deed would still have them dead after a weeks vacation while someone who has a massive deed and 200 animals would come back to some breeding stock remaining?

 

I still don't see how this fixes anything regarding the original issue. The solution is "fix the spawns" and not "if i can't have any, neither should anyone else".

 

Again

 

30 minutes ago, Darnok said:

I suggest to solve this problem like that... animals that are outside during winter should get sick and die.

Grass should not grow in winter, so if animal eats everything from a given tile, it starts to starve.

In my opinion, these two changes would be enough to improve the game and level the playing field in animal husbandry.

There would still be no limit to the maximum number of animals you can keep, you could even buy 5 of such deeds and have 5x more animals than in the picture, but the game would require you to take care of them a little more actively, so in winter you would have to lock them in stables and feed.

 

Simple, realistic, rewarding for active players.

 

If you have 2 animals, you lock them in a small stable and give them enough hay to survive your entire vacation.

The more animals you have the more active player you have to be to keep them alive.

 

Spawn cannot be fixed because there is a limit of animals on the server and if this limit is increased, those low-active players who collect large amounts of animals will increase their collection size and server will hit limit anyway, so it doesn't make sense.
The size of player-animal-collection must be limited by the player's activity, this is the only fair solution. The fact that in game is winter and now hay, offers a realistic solution.

Edited by Darnok

Share this post


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

It couldn't be easier to write. If you have 2 animals, you lock them in a small stable and give them enough hay to survive your entire vacation.

If you can plan for it. Not everyone and not always can. You are missing the whole idea behind paying for a deed.

 

8 minutes ago, Darnok said:

The more animals you have the more active player you have to be to keep them alive.

No, you don't. You are paying hundreds of euros every month for your deed for this reason specifically. Not to worry about animals getting diseased. That mechanic is there already and it brings revenue to the company.

 

11 minutes ago, Darnok said:

Spawn cannot be fixed

Yes it can. Take the on-deed animals or branded animals out of the total poll. It's as simple as that. 

Servers could easily handle twice the number of mobs they currently have. Animal spawn limits have been boosted over the years many times with zero issues.

 

11 minutes ago, Darnok said:

The size of player-animal-collection must be limited by the player's activity

No, it doesn't. It's none of your concern how active i am. I am paying for the peace of mind. Not to brag about the size of the deed, not to build huge towns but to have the animals safe.

 

13 minutes ago, Darnok said:

this is the only fair solution.

Again, it's not.

On some WU servers players are given a few horses at start "so it's fair and easier for everyone" but if they die then the world should stop because they couldn't keep a horse alive? Everyone else's stock should be killed off because another player doesn't have a horse and then it would be fair?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

9 minutes ago, Locath said:

If you can plan for it. Not everyone and not always can. You are missing the whole idea behind paying for a deed.

 

Animals don't die from starvation in 1-2 days, it takes much longer, so any emergency that prevents you from playing for ~3 days will not be a problem.

You pay for the area and the fact that you can keep more animals on it, but that doesn't mean the deed is supposed to keep them alive, that's a job for the active player.

 

9 minutes ago, Locath said:

No, you don't. You are paying hundreds of euros every month for your deed for this reason specifically. Not to worry about animals getting diseased. That mechanic is there already and it brings revenue to the company.

 

Want to pay money to maintain a huge deed that serves as a storehouse for animals that other players can't use? This is supposed to be fair?

 

9 minutes ago, Locath said:

Yes it can. Take the on-deed animals or branded animals out of the total poll. It's as simple as that. 

Servers could easily handle twice the number of mobs they currently have. Animal spawn limits have been boosted over the years many times with zero issues.

 

Zero issues? After fact that limit has hit the wall again and there are no wild horses.

Your solution is ineffective and requires a human working all the time to judge whether limit needs to be increased or not.

While my solution solves the problem in such a way that the players themselves regulate this problem, because if they are more active, there will be more animals on the deeds, and when players activity decreases, the spawn of wild animals will increase, so even if due to some problem in a real life you will lose part of the herd, you will be able to quickly rebuild it, because you will have access to wild horses.

 

9 minutes ago, Locath said:

No, it doesn't. It's none of your concern how active i am. I am paying for the peace of mind. Not to brag about the size of the deed, not to build huge towns but to have the animals safe.

 

You pay for the size of the deed and the amount of resources it contains, and that's it.

After all, if you throw away any item on the deed, it decays over time. With animals it would be exactly the same, what's the problem? Animals would be resources that decays too when not used.

 

9 minutes ago, Locath said:

Again, it's not.

On some WU servers players are given a few horses at start "so it's fair and easier for everyone" but if they die then the world should stop because they couldn't keep a horse alive? Everyone else's stock should be killed off because another player doesn't have a horse and then it would be fair?

 

 

No, inactive players herds should go extinct in the winter to free up resources for more active players.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@DarnokPvE nerfs are never upvoted iirc.

PvP nerfs are only upvoted by same-Kingdom as suggester, and downvoted by the enemy Kingdom they are aimed to cripple.

On PvE, that translates as no-Kingdom suggester, downvoted by the Freedom Kingdom it aims to cripple.

 

Generally speaking, those who suggest nerfs under the banner of fairness come off as selfish, petty, and ruining the game for everyone regardless.

"How to make the world a fairer place: Force everyone to be permacapped at 20 skill, no priests, no deeds, no money, no ownership, you die to everything."

 

Short-term gain: "Yay, no-one can be better than me!"

Long-term loss: "This game is rubbish. There's no content, nobody is allowed to do anything no matter how long they play. I quit."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Darnok said:

Want to pay money to maintain a huge deed that serves as a storehouse for animals that other players can't use? This is supposed to be fair?

Yes, similarly how i keep my tools there so that other players can't use them. I'm not sure what's confusing about that.

 

1 minute ago, Darnok said:

Zero issues? After fact that limit has hit the wall again and there are no wild horses.

Your solution is ineffective and requires a human working all the time to judge whether limit needs to be increased or not.

Please read what you replied to once more.

 

If the non-aggro mobs limit is set to X but on deed animals are accounting for 10% of that, take them out of that poll and it will be only 10% more animals in the wild. This is already managed by the system and new animals spawn only if there is room available so it would be as if no animals were on deed. Problem solved.

 

3 minutes ago, Darnok said:

Your solution is ineffective and requires a human working all the time to judge whether limit needs to be increased or not.

There is no need for anyone to judge anything, limits would remain the same. You would get more non-aggro animals spawning because those on deed wouldn't be blocking them from spawning.

 

If a deed falls and the stock becomes wild, the system already handles it as well. Just won

 

5 minutes ago, Darnok said:

While my solution solves the problem in such a way that the players themselves regulate this problem, because if they are more active, there will be more animals on the deeds,

Yeah, no.

If i know that my animals will die off because it's "unfair" that i have them and you don't, i'll just breed every single female when she can get pregnant to ensure that i have 3x more animals than i do now to come back to still have stock to rebuild the herd from.

So i'll have 600 animals instead of 200. What problem does this solve exactly?

 

8 minutes ago, Darnok said:

You pay for the size of the deed and the amount of resources it contains, and that's it.

After all, if you throw away any item on the deed, it decays over time. With animals it would be exactly the same, what's the problem? Animals would be resources that decays too when not used.

No, you pay for resources on your deed. I pay for the animal ratio. You understand that not everyone play Wurm to be a miner, right?

 

9 minutes ago, Darnok said:

No, inactive players herds should go extinct in the winter to free up resources for more active players.

No, it should not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Locath said:

Yes, similarly how i keep my tools there so that other players can't use them. I'm not sure what's confusing about that.

 

But the fact that you have some tools does not block anyone from making their own tools and extracting metal beyond your deed, right?
And having so many animals that the wild ones don't spawn anymore blocks another player.

 

19 minutes ago, Locath said:

 

If the non-aggro mobs limit is set to X but on deed animals are accounting for 10% of that, take them out of that poll and it will be only 10% more animals in the wild. This is already managed by the system and new animals spawn only if there is room available so it would be as if no animals were on deed. Problem solved.

 

What? Do you have some statistic how many animals (mainly horses and bisons) are currently on deeds or branded and how many are wild?

Without this information, your X or 10% means nothing.

 

19 minutes ago, Locath said:

Yeah, no.

If i know that my animals will die off because it's "unfair" that i have them and you don't, i'll just breed every single female when she can get pregnant to ensure that i have 3x more animals than i do now to come back to still have stock to rebuild the herd from.

So i'll have 600 animals instead of 200. What problem does this solve exactly?

 

Don't you understand that more animals means more room in stables and food needed during the winter? So the size of the herd wouldn't help you at all.

If my idea would be implemented, you would reduce size of your herd before winter, to fit in the stable and have enough hay until spring.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@DarnokIf you want to go to war with 'rich people' you are going about it the stupid way by repeatedly suggesting that they just agree to give up their riches of their own free will and live worse lives because 'that would be fair'. Religion never achieved it, even with a global army of people ordering other people to do just that, or-else!

 

You want to go to war with rich people the smart way, you come play PvP. You learn, you grow, you skill up. Then we go to fiscal-war with PvE.

 

My way:

Short-term: We hopefully have a lot of fun, and PvP population grows by at least 1 person.

Long-term: Newbies are better off, and our enemy - PvE - gets ironically stronger than ever.

Everyone wins, nobody loses. Positive zero sum outcome.

 

Your way:

Short-term: You get downvoted on the forums and treated as a troll.

Long-term: Nobody is better off because of you, and Wurm remains underpopulated by at least 1 person.

Nobody wins, everybody loses. Negative zero-sum outcome.

 

Stop suggesting that the game should be perfect before anyone plays it, and start playing the game to make the online-world a better place.

 

Though honestly, I'll be sorry to end these forum wars by convincing you that this is the smart move. It's been a lot of fun so far, and I'm not bored of it yet.

Oh well, chances are 1 post won't convince you anyway. The immediate fun may last a while longer yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

retoasting because it wasn't golden brown and this can't be a real suggestion

 

4kkr2uU.png

Share this post


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

 

I am a player who came back to the game after a break of several months and sees that gray wild horses are rarer than colored ones with several trait.

If someone would start game today and would like to have as many animals as this player whose collection I showed, then he would not have a chance to achieve his goal.


I'm not saying that such players do something wrong, because the rules of the game allow it you to have large collection of animals, but in my opinion, these rules should be slightly changed so that the player who starts the game 1 year after start of  map can also achieve same goal, otherwise joining the map, which is only 1 year old no longer makes sense.


I suggest to solve this problem like that... animals that are outside during winter should get sick and die.

Grass should not grow in winter, so if animal eats everything from a given tile, it starts to starve.

In my opinion, these two changes would be enough to improve the game and level the playing field in animal husbandry.

There would still be no limit to the maximum number of animals you can keep, you could even buy 5 of such deeds and have 5x more animals than in the picture, but the game would require you to take care of them a little more actively, so in winter you would have to lock them in stables and feed.

 

Simple, realistic, rewarding for active players.

numerous times we keep writing that realism isn't good gameplay, there's a reason too much realism keeps games niche

 

we play to escape real world to some degree, if we wanted a 2nd world and job there's that irl - no need to play this game modified into realism simulator sandbox

 

think about it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Madnath said:

retoasting because it wasn't golden brown and this can't be a real suggestion

 

4kkr2uU.png

mad it's pointless at this point mods modify other people's posts and delete them and enjoy his trolling, it's a circus on forums

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Drayka said:

@DarnokIf you want to go to war with 'rich people' you are going about it the stupid way by repeatedly suggesting that they just agree to give up their riches of their own free will and live worse lives because 'that would be fair'. Religion never achieved it, even with a global army of people ordering other people to do just that, or-else!

 

You want to go to war with rich people the smart way, you come play PvP. You learn, you grow, you skill up. Then we go to fiscal-war with PvE.

 

My way:

Short-term: We hopefully have a lot of fun, and PvP population grows by at least 1 person.

Long-term: Newbies are better off, and our enemy - PvE - gets ironically stronger than ever.

Everyone wins, nobody loses. Positive zero sum outcome.

 

Your way:

Short-term: You get downvoted on the forums and treated as a troll.

Long-term: Nobody is better off because of you, and Wurm remains underpopulated by at least 1 person.

Nobody wins, everybody loses. Negative zero-sum outcome.

 

Stop suggesting that the game should be perfect before anyone plays it, and start playing the game to make the online-world a better place.

 

Though honestly, I'll be sorry to end these forum wars by convincing you that this is the smart move. It's been a lot of fun so far, and I'm not bored of it yet.

Oh well, chances are 1 post won't convince you anyway. The immediate fun may last a while longer yet.

 

Again, you want game to be balanced and fair for every one or pay to win (in case of PvE pay to have fun)?

Your choice. Guess which game will attract more new players?

Share this post


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

Again, you want game to be balanced and fair for every one or pay to win (in case of PvE pay to have fun)?

Your choice. Guess which game will attract more new players?

 

No-way am I posting my long-term war-campaign battleplans on an open forum.

You want to argue with me over whether my strategy is sound, you talk to me directly, not expect me to explain in open-forum.

 

At least my way will work. Your strategy is to tell everyone you're the only smart person on the planet, and then probably wander off to some other game when everyone disagrees with your self-judgement, having changed nothing.

 

I win by default.

Edited by Drayka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Darnok said:

Again, you want game to be balanced and fair for every one or pay to win (in case of PvE pay to have fun)?

Your choice. Guess which game will attract more new players?

Russian roulette is balanced and fair for everyone, doesn't mean people are lining up to play it. i'm impressed at your ability to convince yourself that monthly horse slaughtering will be something that newbies will look forward to.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Drayka said:

 

No-way am I posting my long-term war-campaign battleplans on an open forum.

You want to argue with me over whether my strategy is sound, you talk to me directly, not expect me to explain in open-forum.

 

At least my way will work. Your strategy is to tell everyone you're the only smart person on the planet, and then probably wander off to some other game when everyone disagrees with your self-judgement, having changed nothing.

 

I win by default.

 

There are 32,095 registered users on the forum, ~8 don't like my suggestions, so my ideas are FANTASTIC quality? 😄

 

7 minutes ago, Oblivionnreaver said:

Russian roulette is balanced and fair for everyone, doesn't mean people are lining up to play it. i'm impressed at your ability to convince yourself that monthly horse slaughtering will be something that newbies will look forward to.

 

Novices will have no problems with this, because their herds will not grow to such a level that would not allow them to feed them and place them in a small stable during winter.

Edited by Darnok

Share this post


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

There are 32,095 registered users on the forum, ~8 don't like my suggestions, so my ideas are FANTASTIC quality? 😄

People who quit the game years ago do not count as automatic +1s in your favour.

People who don't read the forums and have never heard of you, do not count as +1s in your favour.

For the record, I shared some of your posts for entertainment value with my Alliance, who do not read the forums.

Nobody thought your threads were even worthy of their time to downvote, and nobody thought you were onto something here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Darnok said:

Novices will have no problems with this, because their herds will not grow to such a level that would not allow them to feed them and place them in a small stable.

you're aware that to start off breeding from scratch requires dozens of horses so you don't spend a year+ getting all the traits and 90 ah right? either the limit would be so high that it'd have 0 impact on anyone bar a few people who collect huge herds and would probably be able to just pay someone to collect hay for them if they can afford a deed that can house hundreds of animals, or a lower limit that would have an actual impact on server spawns would be insanely easy to hit and would prevent you from skilling animal husbandry, which would be an impediment on a newbie starting out animal husbandry. I really think you should go for quality over quantity with your suggestions, you just fire them off daily with what appears to be little thought about them, as is evident with the constant changes and holes in them.

Edited by Oblivionnreaver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Drayka said:

People who quit the game years ago do not count as automatic +1s in your favour.

People who don't read the forums and have never heard of you, do not count as +1s in your favour.

For the record, I shared some of your posts for entertainment value with my Alliance, who do not read the forums.

Nobody thought your threads were even worthy of their time to downvote, and nobody thought you were onto something here.

 

Doesn't the fact that so many users quit the game tell you anything about the game and it's community?

 

But back to the topic of animal breeding fix and harsh winters...

 

7 minutes ago, Oblivionnreaver said:

you're aware that to start off breeding from scratch requires dozens of horses so you don't spend a year+ getting all the traits and 90 ah right? either the limit would be so high that it'd have 0 impact on anyone bar a few people who collect huge herds and would probably be able to just pay someone to collect hay for them if they can afford a deed that can house hundreds of animals, and any limit that would have an actual impact on server spawns would be insanely easy to hit and would prevent you from skilling animal husbandry, which would be an impediment on a newbie starting out animal husbandry. I really think you should go for quality over quantity with your suggestions, you just fire them off daily with what appears to be little thought about them, as is evident with the constant changes and holes in them.

 

So novices who can use scythe would earn some money and find out that the game is more interesting... oh no.

 

After all, you can use grooming on wild animals, so the fact that there would be more of wild animals would only speed up the level up of newbies AH, at the moment they can't level AH because there are no animals on which they can use grooming.

And if new players want to stockpile large collection of animals, they need to buy a big deeds, so I get double win here.

Edited by Darnok

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the profits for Devs, it is a very simple solution that goes hand in hand with harsh winter, in starter cities the player can buy hay for silver.

 

Alternatively, we get a new map that we can sail to at any time and when it is winter on Mel, Har and Cad, it is the middle of summer or spring on this new island (Shipbuilders would probably appreciate this solution)

 

 

Edited by Darnok

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Darnok said:

What? Do you have some statistic how many animals (mainly horses and bisons) are currently on deeds or branded and how many are wild?

Without this information, your X or 10% means nothing.

I really begin to think you are 100% trolling here.

Numbers don't matter at the slightest and X and 10% were used as examples.

If there is 5 bisons in total on player deeds on a server and they are taken out of the mob count on a server, that makes 5 more slots for non-aggro mobs on that server.

I'll do the math once more:

If it's 10, not 5 bisons on player deeds and they are excluded from the total count it will make 10 (ten) slots for new animals to spawn.

If it's 8749 bisons and horses combined on player deeds and they are not counted against the total mob count, that makes 8749 more slots for new animals to spawn in the wild on the server.

Even then there is no guarantee what type of animal spawns. It could be all hens, whether your suggestion or mine releases the slots for new animals.

 

This is how the current system works and all that has to be done is to exclude the deeded or at least branded animals from the wild animals count per server, without a bunch of people who play Wurm ragequitting to facilitate -maybe- someone finding a wild horse.

 

38 minutes ago, Darnok said:

Don't you understand that more animals means more room in stables and food needed during the winter? So the size of the herd wouldn't help you at all.

If my idea would be implemented, you would reduce size of your herd before winter, to fit in the stable and have enough hay until spring.

Yeah, no. Active breeders would still breed way more to offset the animals that die to punish them for having animals, even further reducing the available mob slots in the wild.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Darnok said:

at the moment they can't level AH because there are no animals

i go out and kill them for weapon skill all the time, maybe you're not looking in the right places.

8 minutes ago, Darnok said:

After all, you can use grooming on wild animals

i've got a fun challenge for you. grind 50 animal husbandry, using only wild animals, on a new account. bonus points if you don't move for 3 seconds each time you embark/disembark to simulate your other suggestion about armor penalizing your horses or w/e it was. you'll learn very quickly why it's a requirement to collect tons of animals on your deed to grind with.

11 minutes ago, Darnok said:

And if new players want to stockpile large collection of animals, they need to buy a big deeds, so I get double win here.

you posted not 20 minutes ago about balance > p2w and now you're saying p2w is good

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Locath said:

I really begin to think you are 100% trolling here.

I judge that this is not 'trolling' by the accepted definitions of internet trolling. Trolling requires pre-meditated intent to trigger a negative emotional reaction in a community, for the sake of mischief and/or in exchange for being paid to do so.

 

Darnok consistently posts in a way that indicates that the emotional reactions of others is of no perceivable benefit or detriment to him. He would appear to be merely stating his opinions in a way that is consistent with that perception.

Edited by Drayka
  • Like 1

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