corbs

[Zuelatak 235]

7 hours ago, DaletheGood said:

First, do no harm

As I've mentioned several times in this forum already that there will always be someone harmed with any nerf regardless how small, and yet still no one has owned the idea that nerfs should never be done. Which if that's the case I don't wanna see no more complaining on other ideas if something is too strong or too beneficial to any particular player  And if you feel that some nerfs are okay then where do you draw the line? When you aren't effected? When a majority isn't? When it's people you hate?

7 hours ago, DaletheGood said:

Primum nil nocere is Latin for "First, do no harm." You don't seem to follow that rule.

The context I was looking for was not just what the translation was. It's where it came from, who said it, why we should follow it, etc. Just throwing around random quotes to follow as life advice without any understanding of the quote would be chaos.

 

A very quick google search will also tell you that the origin of that phrase is assumed to be directed towards Physicians who are treating patients. "Primum non nocere was introduced into American and British medical culture by Worthington Hooker in his 1847 book Physician and Patient." Now you can try to apply this to games or literally any instance in which people are "causing harm", but even physicians hate this phrase. The second result on google is a physician writing a paper against the usage of the rule "We, as today's physicians need to allow our patients to understand why and how it is no longer possible to “first, do no harm."

 

So, yes I do not follow this rule as I am not a physician trying to treat a game. I am a player who realizes that life is full of sacrifices and consequences. It isn't always going to be a positive happy old time as the game improves. Some people will get mad, some people may leave, but this will always be the case with any change in this game. If you wish to see no harm then stop development, but even then people will be harmed because now their game isn't updating.

7 hours ago, DaletheGood said:

There is no argument, discussion or pleading that will move me off my rock.

Then why are you even engaging in any conversation? You're just wasting everyone's time if you aren't willing to potentially be wrong. 

Edited May 4, 2022 by Zuelatak

[TheTrickster 2,288]

Getting back to the original suggestion, which has been well derailed - hijacked even - by repeated calls to "re-balance" ships in various ways....

 

Corbitas in real life and in Wurm life are deep water vessels.  They are intended as deep water vessels.  The suggestion is to make them shallow water vessels in order to get around in areas where people have not specifically made provision for deep water vessels.

The "problem" that this suggestion is trying to solve is accessing shallows for goods transfer and general landing.  Any discussion about speeds, capacities etc is necessarily off-topic - and has achieved an orbital vector anyway. 

 

Nothing in this discussion has persuaded me to move from my position that these should be left as deep water vessels.

 

 

 

 

Edited May 4, 2022 by TheTrickster

[Zuelatak 235]

1 hour ago, TheTrickster said:

The "problem" that this suggestion is trying to solve is accessing shallows for goods transfer.

The actual problem is that

On 4/14/2022 at 7:15 PM, christopher said:

these boats need purpose

So even though I disagree with their idea of how to do that which is allowing them to be in shallow water I think it's still on topic to discuss our ideas of how that could be achieved. It should even be encouraged that rather than just shooting down someone's solution you also provide your own solution to the problem which is the lack of purpose for corbs.

 

[TheTrickster 2,288]

On 4/15/2022 at 12:15 PM, christopher said:

can we have the bottom of the ship lifted a bit to be able to clear the shallow water ways every one has made .these boats need purpose, and i load my horse in  and go to rifts or visiting

Notice that the purpose has been specified already - for this player that is "go to rifts or visiting".  The problem is that in doing that they encounter shallow water in a deep-water ship.  The problem is NOT lack of purpose, but lack of fitness for a particular purpose.

 

Suggestions around speed and capacity do nothing to address that problem, and giving any particular purpose is of no use to this suggestions if it does not facilitate the purpose stated in the OP, and is even worse when it is proposing changes to some other ship not even used by the player. 

 

E.g. 

"I need to be able to get to rifts"

  "Well, we can fix that by making this other ship you aren't using less useful to other players"

 

1 hour ago, Zuelatak said:

rather than just shooting down someone's solution you also provide your own solution

Yes, well I did that; in this discussion as well as in 2020.

 

The thing is, what you are proposing is NOT a solution to the OP's problem of getting to rifts and visiting.  So, off topic, I still believe.

 

 

 

 

Edited May 4, 2022 by TheTrickster

[Zuelatak 235]

1 hour ago, TheTrickster said:

Notice that the purpose has been specified already - for this player that is "go to rifts or visiting".

Enhhhh it feels to me like that is them listing an example of where it's lacking purpose.

 

1 hour ago, TheTrickster said:

Yes, well I did that; in this discussion as well as in 2020.

And I'm thankful that you did! I wasn't referring to everyone in the thread. Just those I was conversing with at the time.

 

However, if the issue is that players aren't making canals large enough for big boats then I do believe changing the speed and capacity of boats could have an impact on it. For example, if we go to extremes and a corb could go 100km/h or even crazier like 300km/h and the knarr only 20 then I bet people would create better canals. I do believe the lack of canals is because how strong the knarr is compared to other boats because of how on par it is with other boats AND it can travel in shallow water. So while it's not a direct fix like allowing corbs to travel in shallow water I do believe it is on topic and in the direction of fixing the issue presented.

 

Thus far I think Ekcin's tweaks have been the best idea.

 

Edited May 4, 2022 by Zuelatak

[DaletheGood 1,073]

3 hours ago, Zuelatak said:

You're just wasting everyone's time if you aren't willing to potentially be wrong

right back at ya

[DaletheGood 1,073]

1 hour ago, TheTrickster said:

Nothing in this discussion has persuaded me the move from my position that these should be left as deep water vessels.

Yup

[DaletheGood 1,073]

18 minutes ago, Zuelatak said:

I do believe the lack of canals is because how strong the knarr is

As I've said, I purposefully made my canal knarr depth because I don't want the big ships in my small lake. Why others have made it that way you're free to speculate on, which it seems is what you do best... speculate. oh, and hijack threads. you do that pretty well too.

[Zuelatak 235]

Welcome back to the conversation. Please continue to attack my character instead of just addressing what I'm talking about.

1 hour ago, DaletheGood said:

right back at ya

I am willing to be potentially wrong wym? When did I say I wasn't. Unlike you?

1 hour ago, DaletheGood said:

As I've said, I purposefully made my canal knarr depth because I don't want the big ships in my small lake. Why others have made it that way you're free to speculate on, which it seems is what you do best... speculate. oh, and hijack threads. you do that pretty well too.

Speculation is apart of the process of discussion I don't know what you're trying to diss me on >.< You really think a majority of players intentionally build their canals so only shallow water boats can enter? Really? The fact that you think my speculation is wrong is itself speculation as you also haven't provided evidence. 

 

You seeing me as hijacking a thread is your perspective. I see myself as adding to it, so until you show me how I'm hijacking it how could I see your perspective? You feel? At least Trickster has been trying to do which I'm not trying to explain my perspective to him and see what he thinks.

Edited May 4, 2022 by Zuelatak

[Ekcin 2,417]

To say that, to create a serious tunnel or boat mine, the knarr is absolutely indispensible, and her (as I concede to Yggdrasil, somewhat overpowered) hold is an invaluable boon for that work. It allows to transport and remove crates, bsb, smelters, carts, wagons, hitches which cannot swim (hh, bison), and construction materials of any kind to and from the construction sites. Knarr operate at in tile high and wide caves (albeit not comfortably) so can assist from very start. There is no other vessel or vehicle even remotely able to contribute that way. And none of the proposed changes addresses such.

 

1 hour ago, Zuelatak said:

 I do believe the lack of canals is because how strong the knarr is  ..

 

Looks that you never worked on serious cave tunnel projects. Not that it wonders as no project on NFI has even the size of the three humble projects I have worked on or contributed to, much less the larger and more elaborate ones, be it on Xanadu, Release, or other servers. Without the knarr we probably would have few large tunnel projects at all.

 

And a word to the primum nil nocere motto: I mentioned its hippocratian (legendary anciend greek doctor, and medical doctors' oath) origin. And the job of the medical profession is to treat ills and disorders in a complex system like living organisms, therefore the triad of first do not harm, second be catious, third heal. In a way, the game environment and its community are a complex system as well, and proposed changes have to be weighted towards the potential risk and harm they can do.

 

And so far I strictly oppose to a stance of bashing somebody else's assets and achievements for either some selfish advantage or windy speculation about some unclear benefit.

[Zuelatak 235]

2 hours ago, Ekcin said:

To say that, to create a serious tunnel or boat mine, the knarr is absolutely indispensible, and her (as I concede to Yggdrasil, somewhat overpowered) hold is an invaluable boon for that work. It allows to transport and remove crates, bsb, smelters, carts, wagons, hitches which cannot swim (hh, bison), and construction materials of any kind to and from the construction sites. Knarr operate at in tile high and wide caves (albeit not comfortably) so can assist from very start. There is no other vessel or vehicle even remotely able to contribute that way. And none of the proposed changes addresses such.

Which is totally fair. I can't speak for that experience so I don't know how badly the knarr is needed for it. If that is the case then I think it's fair to unchange the hold or a very small amount. However, I still think decreasing the speed of the knarr shouldn't make that activity much more horrible. At least in terms of air speed. Just takes slightly longer to autowalk back and forth.

 

2 hours ago, Ekcin said:

In a way, the game environment and its community are a complex system as well, and proposed changes have to be weighted towards the potential risk and harm they can do.

Weighted I agree on, but you started with just "do no harm" which had no actual relevance to this game for you to use as evidence to support your point. If you wanna live by it wherever you can that's totally fine. This conversation specifically  is to weigh in on the issue. To consider both sides and decide how we feel. It feels like people aren't willing to try on other people's shoes and don't care about their perspectives. 

 

2 hours ago, Ekcin said:

And so far I strictly oppose to a stance of bashing somebody else's assets and achievements for either some selfish advantage or windy speculation about some unclear benefit.

Agreed, but sometimes you do take risks. Maybe not this time, but some changes we have to. I just don't see a how small tweaks like we discussed and you mentioned would bash those achievements. It would just make the knarr less overpowered like you said yourself meaning that people would rely on other boats a bit more and those other boats require deeper canals. Therefore, I don't think it's too much of a jump to say that if knarrs were used less for general scenarios that people would be more incentivized to create deeper canals.

[Ekcin 2,417]

In short, nerfing speed of any boat is the worst one can do to sailing in Wurm. We have over 1500 tiles long tunnels in SFI, nobody who never was there should feel competent to judge about. And yes I know that sailing speed was already a reason for some to quit Wurm. So much about detention and harm.

[Zuelatak 235]

11 hours ago, Ekcin said:

nerfing speed of any boat is the worst one can do to sailing in Wurm

Yeah so I guess this is where I root disagreement would be. The only thing that is lost by slower boats is time. This game is already massively slow and consumes massive amounts of time. I think the worst thing would be adjusting the hold because then you have to take more trips rather than slightly longer trips which I at least would be more annoyed by.  It's more work from me for the same reward, but I don't have to do anything more to autowalk a bit longer. 

 

11 hours ago, Ekcin said:

We have over 1500 tiles long tunnels in SFI

Since I don't have this experience I'll have to do math to picture it. Correct me if I'm wrong as I'm no mathematician and these are quick measurements and guesses.

 

Every ~2.5 tiles is 0.01km. So, 1,500 tiles should be about 6kms. I'm not sure the avg. speed of a knarr is, but I'm gonna assume it's somewhere around 20km/h. So it'd take me roughly 18 minutes to sail those 1,500 tiles. I also assume that you're autowalking which means those 18 minutes are spent outside the game doing something else while you wait. If we nerf the knarr speed to say 15km/h then the journey would take 24 minutes.

 

I truly don't believe that players will start quitting the game if they have to wait an extra 6 minutes with each trip. It might be the straw to break the camel's back with the current state of the game and how much ###### players have gone through thus far, but the change on its own should have minimal impact on how people feel about the game which just means we push this change later when the state is better, but the change is pushed nonetheless. 

 

11 hours ago, Ekcin said:

And yes I know that sailing speed was already a reason for some to quit Wurm. So much about detention and harm.

Could you elaborate more on this anecdotal evidence that you're using to support your point? Was there a speed change in the past or were people just fed up with how slow things felt in that moment? How many people was it? Do you know if it was a really important point for them or if they were already hating a lot of aspects of the game and this drew them over the edge?

[Ekcin 2,417]

First, I am tired of incompetent comments. It is true that an over 1500 tiles long tunnel (approximately the diameter of Cadence) is 6km long. Only, when sailing in light breeze or against the direction of wind, speed of a ql95 runed knarr like mine goes down to 12-13.2km/h, if ql is lower and/or not runed. This means half an hour from one tunnel end to the other, and in a tunnel, there is no tacking for better wind vectors. And usually the journey neither started at the one nor ended at the other tunnel end. From my boat mine to the server border it is over 3000 tiles (more than seven grid tiles which are 400 on Xanadu), for example, and I am in the northern corner of the continent, not deep inland. Not few have to sail in excess of 10 grid to reach the ocean.

 

And well you may blame me lying or bringing up anecdotal evidence. When people told  that hanging around in slow sailing were their worst experience, and later eventually leave, I have more reason to believe that than trusting in windy speculations that nerfing the knarr will advantage corbitas, or lead to more tunnel and canal building, or even influences newcomer retention in any way. In fact, not everyone has the time to hang on Wurm for hours over hours, and expects fun when doing so, not nagging boredom.

[Cecci 1,611]

This urge he has is to make the least difficult big ship (newbie ship) better than one that is more difficult to make.

Corbitas already got their speed upped (they were like sailing a bathtub) and they do no longer get stuck on shore like they used to.

We don't need the corbita upped more.

 

It is intresting that anything anyone else says is anecdotal but not his stuff.

Also: tunnels are rarely straight, so no afk sailing for like half hour.

[Zuelatak 235]

1 hour ago, Ekcin said:

incompetent comments

Unnecessary negativity that is more unproductive than how you see my comments. Why can't you just continue to be civil in this discussion? I'm just trying to better understand your position just as I'd hope you're doing the same for me. Start asking me some questions back.

 

1 hour ago, Ekcin said:

Only, when sailing in light breeze or against the direction of wind, speed of a ql95 runed knarr like mine goes down to 12-13.2km/h, if ql is lower and/or not runed. This means half an hour from one tunnel end to the other, and in a tunnel, there is no tacking for better wind vectors. And usually the journey neither started at the one nor ended at the other tunnel end. From my boat mine to the server border it is over 3000 tiles (more than seven grid tiles which are 400 on Xanadu), for example, and I am in the northern corner of the continent, not deep inland. Not few have to sail in excess of 10 grid to reach the ocean.

Not sure why you'd be opting to work on these canals when you have the worst winds. I feel like it's better to represent the issue through the usage of average speeds. I get that it'd suck to sail in light breeze through your canal. It sucks in general, but you aren't always going to be sailing in light breeze, right?

 

1 hour ago, Ekcin said:

And well you may blame me lying or bringing up anecdotal evidence.

Not calling you a liar. I just wanted you to explain your reasoning more about your anecdotal evidence. It's possible that there's more going on than you may think or are putting off.

 

1 hour ago, Ekcin said:

When people told  that hanging around in slow sailing were their worst experience, and later eventually leave

It's def up there as a bad experience, but that sounds like you're speculating why they quit while I'm speculating how balancing boats would effect the game. 

 

1 hour ago, Ekcin said:

I have more reason to believe that than trusting in windy speculations that nerfing the knarr will advantage corbitas, or lead to more tunnel and canal building, or even influences newcomer retention in any way. In fact, not everyone has the time to hang on Wurm for hours over hours, and expects fun when doing so, not nagging boredom.

Which is totally up to you. I see no reason why other boats such as the corb wouldn't be used more if the boat people mainly used wasn't as good anymore. And if corbs / other boats are used more I don't see why it wouldn't lead to more deeper canals. However, I will agree I don't know how new players would respond to a balanced system over an unbalanced system. That part is certainly a massive guess that players like balance over unbalance, but maybe I'm wrong. I do think people have time to autowalk slightly longer than normal, but it is certainly boring.

 

 

We do at least agree that Knarrs are overpowered, and we have brainstormed some nice buff tweaks that could be made to other boats to elevate them up to the level of the knarr as opposed to lowering the knarr to their level. I'm still interested in the scenario where nerfing is somehow acceptable, If it even is. That's something I've been hoping someone can share an opinion on. However, I'm also fine with dropping the idea of nerfing the knarr and instead focusing the direction to buffing the corb and other boats. 

Edited May 5, 2022 by Zuelatak

[Zuelatak 235]

7 minutes ago, Cecci said:

This urge he has is to make the least difficult big ship (newbie ship) better than one that is more difficult to make.

Corbitas already got their speed upped (they were like sailing a bathtub) and they do no longer get stuck on shore like they used to.

We don't need the corbita upped more.

I have no urge one way or another. And I'm not trying to make it better than the knarr???? I'm literally just discussing the idea of a nerf and trying to understand why it would be problematic, and I'm getting half full opinions. Would you answer when you think nerfing is acceptable? I'm all for buffing corbs and other boats to match the knarr. I've just expressed earlier that it's a harder process than a nerf. Though a nerf has a more negative impact on the community.

 

"I owned a corbita for half an hour once and then I gave it away."

If your anecdotal experience is supposed to be good support then why wouln't this be good evidence that the corbita needs some more love?

 

9 minutes ago, Cecci said:

It is intresting that anything anyone else says is anecdotal but not his stuff.

It's interesting that I never denied my evidence being anecdotal??? I brought it up because Ekcin was vouching for an unspecified amount of people's experiences. Not just speaking about his own.

 

11 minutes ago, Cecci said:

Also: tunnels are rarely straight, so no afk sailing for like half hour.

From my experience (Anecdotal as is yours) on NFI I haven't seen many twisty tunnels. They usually just have veins in them until someone takes the time to blow them up, but I would imagine on SFI someone did do that. If they indeed are not straight then fair enough. It is still my belief that a slightly longer travel time would not be a massive issue for the average player. Like a lot of people got mad when horses got slower, but I don't think many quit for that specific reason? They just adapted to the slower speeds like I did. I think for that point I'll just have to agree to disagree. It'd be too hard to prove that specific speculation one way or another.

 

 

[christopher 208]

no the slow wind is bad as , no slower boats please ,takes ages to go to rifts n back

[Zuelatak 235]

2 hours ago, christopher said:

no the slow wind is bad as , no slower boats please ,takes ages to go to rifts n back

Out of curiosity would you be opposed if canals you used to get to rifts were deep water level, so that you could use big ships?

[Ekcin 2,417]

Strange question. No player in sane mind would "oppose" a deep water canal if it is in place, no less than "opposing" oceans.

 

The thing is to build such a beast. A dual use tunnel can be 2 tiles wide, and about 60 slope high (53 from water table), fits a knarr perfectly, can be ridden and driven. To have a submountainous passage to service large ships, it needs 90 slope at least (65 from water) not to have a caravel captain clipping through the ceiling which is lousy sailing. To have a highway accompagnying the waterway (a dual use 2 wide tunnel can always be catseyed when reinforced) it typically needs a 5 to 6 tiles wide structure, and all resource veins removed, when done, reinforcing, usually paving remains. Typically, an all boats tunnel with highway is about 2.5-3 times the effort compared to a simple dual use highway or road tunnel.

 

And we are speaking about real tunnels of hundreds of tiles. One of my projects consisted of 1500 tiles tunnel+highway, about 3300 support beams for walls, and 3200 for floors, 1100 tiles tunnel alone (3wide) with 2200 beams "only" (ok strongwall too, but that was often needed to repair dropshafts so the beam ruled).  Hundreds of veins to mine out, the less important ones lava'd (also some digging job on surface).

 

Such is tunnel work. So ask again why there are no more deep water tunnels in Wurm.

[Zuelatak 235]

18 hours ago, Ekcin said:

Strange question.

Strange that you aren't the person I asked the question to >.<

 

19 hours ago, Ekcin said:

clipping through the ceiling which is lousy sailing

I don't believe I've had this experience, but as long as I could navigate through the tunnel still I'd be fine with it. I think you should prioritize the sailing functionality over the aesthetic of what repetitive tunnel you might be sailing through. Not saying you shouldn't make it pretty letter and allow people to see it, but functionality should come first. Unless that functionality isn't very rewarding which would be another reason for buffing boats (which I don't think we disagreed on)

 

19 hours ago, Ekcin said:

So ask again why there are no more deep water tunnels in Wurm.

Strange that you thought this was my question. I just asked if they'd change their mind if deep water was there instead.

 

[Cecci 1,611]

3 minutes ago, Zuelatak said:

 

Strange that you thought this was my question. I just asked if they'd change their mind if deep water was there instead.

 

You are not listening, and tunnels don't get deep by themselves.
Start with making the tunnels deeper yourself.
If you want every tunnel to fit bulky ships then sort it yourself and don't expect others to go mine down what you mean is missing.
People have made tremendous efforts to create infrastructure for the fellow players, myself included, both as creator and as beneficiary.

People that make infrastructure in this game have already stated that it would take way more time to make such tunnels.
Asking if people would agree with you if tunnels were deeper, that is a very strange and uninformed question.'

No hokus pokus will make them deeper because you want so corbitas to be better than knarrs.

[Zuelatak 235]

25 minutes ago, Cecci said:

You are not listening

I am listening you are just confused with what I'm saying.

 

25 minutes ago, Cecci said:

tunnels don't get deep by themselves.
Start with making the tunnels deeper yourself.
If you want every tunnel to fit bulky ships then sort it yourself

I'm aware. I literally said that if I did build the tunnel I would prioritize functionality. And that I think functionality should always be beneficial enough to be more important over aesthetics. Also, that if it's not it's even more reason for buffs/change. While I would love and appreciate the beauty in someone's work on their tunnel, I personally would appreciate the ability to more quickly get to my destination.

 

25 minutes ago, Cecci said:

People have made tremendous efforts to create infrastructure for the fellow players, myself included, both as creator and as beneficiary.

And I respect you and every one of them. I respect everyone's effort no matter what it's in. You worked hard on it and you should be proud of it. Personally I'd be more proud saving people's time with a shitty looking functional tunnel first and then work on it to make it beautiful.

 

25 minutes ago, Cecci said:

People that make infrastructure in this game have already stated that it would take way more time to make such tunnels.

Unless I misunderstood Ekcin, a shitty functional deep water tunnel (20 tiles deep) wouldn't require the vast amount of work on the ceiling as a good looking knarr one would "(53 from water table)"? 

 

I think what you're talking about is functional and aesthetically pleasing tunnels which wasn't what I was talking about.

 

25 minutes ago, Cecci said:

Asking if people would agree with you if tunnels were deeper, that is a very strange and uninformed question.'

It's literally just a clarifying question, so I can better understand where their issues lay. It might be obvious to you, but it isn't for me so I asked and I don't want anyone speaking for them just because it's common sense for you. Stop shaming me for asking clarifying questions. That's ###### up.

 

  

25 minutes ago, Cecci said:

No hokus pokus will make them deeper because you want so corbitas to be better than knarrs.

Ahh so you are also not listening to me. I said I'm trying to balance them and people agree that knarrs are overpowered, so could you please stop restating me incorrectly? Also, how dare you say that magic doesn't exist.

Edited May 6, 2022 by Zuelatak

[Ekcin 2,417]

48 minutes ago, Zuelatak said:

Unless I misunderstood Ekcin, a shitty functional deep water tunnel (20 tiles deep) wouldn't require the vast amount of work on the ceiling as a good looking knarr one would "(53 from water table)"? 

You misunderstood. I leave it to the judgement of the audience whether it was my fault, and I expressed me so unclearly that I am easily misunderstood. 

 

A fully functional boat and highway tunnel for vessels up to knarr does not need much work on the ceiling. In the old times some miners even only mined out the middle corner of the 2 tiles to create a roof shaped ceiling. so only mining out 2 tiles (resource tiles ofc more work), reinforcing floor and walls, catseyeing, mining middle ceiling corner to max, or flatten/level both ceilings, ready. 

 

For all boats, the tunnel must be 5-6 tiles wide. It needs to be  mined down 20, better 25 slope below water, and 65 slope above water table. You cannot do that while standing on the ground as you cannot reach that high, there are different techniques to achieve high ceilings I shall not describe in detail here, but all of them require considerable effort, worst when something is messed up on the ceiling (may require to collapse up to 6 tiles). 

 

The number of resource tiles to remove rises of course with the number in proportion of tiles to mine out. That should be clear.

 

Knarr tunnels usually look plain and humble, just rectangular shafts (of roofed ceilings). A large all boat tunnel is more impressive by size already, and will often be adorned by claddings, dyed lamps etc. It is a way to crown the hard work done, especially on Release, on Independence, but also in some locations of Xanadu and others, we have such ones.The functional stuff are the knarr tunnels. Without them, few communication lanes would exist.  

[Zexos 468]

I love my corbita so I would like some sort of improvements, yes

Edited May 6, 2022 by Zexos