Posted March 19 Quality of containers could affect their capacity, e.g. small crate 30ql would have +30% more space for logs. Everyone would have choice of spamming new low ql containers vs upgrading them. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted March 19 3 hours ago, Darnok said: Quality of containers could affect their capacity, e.g. small crate 30ql would have +30% more space for logs. Everyone would have choice of spamming new low ql containers vs upgrading them. +1 but also bed ql should effect sb gain 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted March 19 5 hours ago, Darnok said: Quality of containers could affect their capacity, e.g. small crate 30ql would have +30% more space for logs. Everyone would have choice of spamming new low ql containers vs upgrading them. 2 hours ago, Atndy said: +1 but also bed ql should effect sb gain rather not -1 neither Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted March 19 2 hours ago, Atndy said: +1 but also bed ql should effect sb gain Makes sense to me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted March 19 4 hours ago, Atndy said: +1 but also bed ql should effect sb gain That's a big +1 from me. Only makes sense that you sleep better in a higher quality bed. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted March 19 (edited) No, No, and NO! Random capacity crates will make the market sell and buy of bulk items a nightmare. Also, our crate rack storage will be harder to be assessed with those random crate capacities you propose. In general, random capacity in crates is counterintuitive and nightmarish. We already have a stupid amount of sleep bonus "inflation", we don't need more, treasure maps and holy sites provide more than enough sleep bonus than "normal", we don't need more, and I grind like crazy. Not to mention the 10 mins of coffee sleep bonus daily. Edited March 19 by Rustblade comma added 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted March 20 A large crate is currently seen as a standard measure of traded quantity (300). Calculating item totals and the total number of crates needed for bulk orders would be much more difficult without a standard crate. A problem would also occur when crates lose quality due to off deed decay. Do they retain their overloaded contents? or do excess items pop out onto the floor? This could unfortunately happen as soon as crates are removed from deed, even in the hold of a ship crossing between servers. If instead, crates retained their contents after decay, problems would still occur when we move or remove some items and can no longer fit them back into the crate because it has decayed. Perhaps we should keep the standard container sizes, but instead increase the variety of different container types available to suit more storage needs. I am sure we can all think of other useful containers which might be good to add. There's an interesting thread on Shipping Containers here: 5 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted March 20 14 hours ago, Atndy said: +1 but also bed ql should effect sb gain No. The rate of SB gain shouldn't be tied into a singular skill, and SB as a resource is as fair as it could be, so long as you don't mind people opting to sell their powders for coin instead. Making sense does not mean it's a good game mechanic or concept. You'd just create a frankly terrible disparity, something I already feel makes the differences in bedrolls really awful. Straw beds I'll give a pass to at least, though it already doesn't feel good, or right. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted March 20 8 hours ago, Muse said: A large crate is currently seen as a standard measure of traded quantity (300). Calculating item totals and the total number of crates needed for bulk orders would be much more difficult without a standard crate. A problem would also occur when crates lose quality due to off deed decay. Do they retain their overloaded contents? or do excess items pop out onto the floor? This could unfortunately happen as soon as crates are removed from deed, even in the hold of a ship crossing between servers. If instead, crates retained their contents after decay, problems would still occur when we move or remove some items and can no longer fit them back into the crate because it has decayed. Perhaps we should keep the standard container sizes, but instead increase the variety of different container types available to suit more storage needs. I am sure we can all think of other useful containers which might be good to add. There's an interesting thread on Shipping Containers here: maybe 200-250(either) reinforced small crates.. unlock at 80 350-500(either) reinforced large crates.. unlock at 90 carpentry skill keep size/volume/etc.. identical to large crates, perks.. better fitted/designed/w/e reinforced, "taking less space" and offering more storage.. result will be .. a lot of people will adopt these as one true religion.. and old type will be less used, but not go extinct, small crates are disgusting, tiny storage and many to deal with.. on top having several woodtypes could be bothersome with the sorting, but they are still used here and there Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted March 20 8 hours ago, Madnath said: No. The rate of SB gain shouldn't be tied into a singular skill, and SB as a resource is as fair as it could be, so long as you don't mind people opting to sell their powders for coin instead. Making sense does not mean it's a good game mechanic or concept. You'd just create a frankly terrible disparity, something I already feel makes the differences in bedrolls really awful. Straw beds I'll give a pass to at least, though it already doesn't feel good, or right. Since when did people start taking darnoks post seriously. Obviously my post was a joke. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted March 20 aren't some people metagaming this anyway.. logout from sfi by crossing to epic and never use a bed(gain sb while on the other cluster), pointless to improve/repair/create such if epic portal is within reach, seems to be the shortcut.. no need to wait 1 minute log-out timers and all the normal weird annoying gaming mechanics,, just cross and alt+f4 and laugh maniacally, it's totally fine.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted March 21 (edited) On 3/20/2024 at 12:23 PM, Atndy said: Since when did people start taking darnoks post seriously. Obviously my post was a joke. Counter point: it's Wurm, someone, somewhere, will think that's truly a good idea. But my mistake, I apologize. Edited March 21 by Madnath 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted March 22 I'd be sooooo down with each 10 QL increasing capacity by %10. It would be amazing. +1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted March 27 (edited) Think about this with some RL logic for a minute. A crate, whether hurriedly slapped together out of crappy materials or lovingly crafted out of ancient hardwood salvaged from beneath a dam lake, is a crate. The quality affects its durability but does not effect its size or capacity in any manner. I know wogic is a thing, but let's not abandon logic and start introducing wogic on purpose. Edited March 28 by TheTrickster Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted March 27 On 3/20/2024 at 1:33 AM, Muse said: A large crate is currently seen as a standard measure of traded quantity (300). Calculating item totals and the total number of crates needed for bulk orders would be much more difficult without a standard crate. A problem would also occur when crates lose quality due to off deed decay. Do they retain their overloaded contents? or do excess items pop out onto the floor? This could unfortunately happen as soon as crates are removed from deed, even in the hold of a ship crossing between servers. If instead, crates retained their contents after decay, problems would still occur when we move or remove some items and can no longer fit them back into the crate because it has decayed. Perhaps we should keep the standard container sizes, but instead increase the variety of different container types available to suit more storage needs. I am sure we can all think of other useful containers which might be good to add. There's an interesting thread on Shipping Containers here: I was also wondering about these problems, but I don't mean that containers necessarily have to be larger, I'm just looking justification for existence of ql in case of small crates. One of my old ideas was a restriction that would prevent items with a higher ql than ql of container from being stored in crate and bsb, which would also give a good reason to imp them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted March 27 23 minutes ago, Darnok said: I was also wondering about these problems, but I don't mean that containers necessarily have to be larger, I'm just looking justification for existence of ql in case of small crates. One of my old ideas was a restriction that would prevent items with a higher ql than ql of container from being stored in crate and bsb, which would also give a good reason to imp them. lol, no.. we can not possibly make ql99-100 crates and a damage tick to multiple items like that sitting for a while offdeed(parked boat, etc..) is pretty crazy to deal with, etc... ql is not as decorative when it comes to time investment to maintain items and crates are pretty small for the bulk players move around normally Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted March 27 13 hours ago, Finnn said: lol, no.. we can not possibly make ql99-100 crates and a damage tick to multiple items like that sitting for a while offdeed(parked boat, etc..) is pretty crazy to deal with, etc... ql is not as decorative when it comes to time investment to maintain items and crates are pretty small for the bulk players move around normally Storing large amounts of high ql resources should be more difficult than storing low ql resources. At the same time, such a mechanism should also prevent aggressive expansion and robbing distant regions of resources, because who would extract large amounts of resources and keep them in crates, if they can't store them for long enough to make something useful? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted March 28 Make it too complicated and too annoying, a lot of people will quit and you could be among them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted March 28 (edited) 4 hours ago, Simyaci said: Make it too complicated and too annoying, a lot of people will quit and you could be among them. Idea is very simple, a small crate or bsb with ql 60 cannot store materials with ql above 60. Average player, like me, won't reach ql 100, so buying 2-3 small crates and same amount of high quality bsb will be enough to store all he needs. It would be good system and combined with fatigue it should slow down plunderers. Edited March 28 by Darnok Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted March 28 Plunderers would be the ones who have 90ql large crates the next day after such change, if that is your main focus. The game is not meant to be a torture. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted March 28 idea is very unpractical.. you chop few trees to logs, mine some ore, harvest cotton, etc.. for a new player with your 90-100 skill and the new player is chess-mated(you give just resource on the spot, containers are provided by the new player), also you're now stuck to make large crates or w/e this unpractical spinoff half idea is producing, in the end all lose more time for no benefit, vs existing ok state where all works just fine; upgrading the item in some way.. which is practical.. and converts it into a new state, name, storage amount, model, etc... (makes it distinguishable new container) - ok... same item with various shenanigan mechanics - madness and irritability for all Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted March 30 On 3/21/2024 at 10:28 PM, Madnath said: Counter point: it's Wurm, someone, somewhere, will think that's truly a good idea. But my mistake, I apologize. Resource nodes? *duck* Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 2 On 3/30/2024 at 5:32 PM, Ekcin said: Resource nodes? *duck* I like them more than previous system 🙂 On 3/28/2024 at 2:10 PM, Finnn said: idea is very unpractical.. you chop few trees to logs, mine some ore, harvest cotton, etc.. for a new player with your 90-100 skill and the new player is chess-mated(you give just resource on the spot, containers are provided by the new player), also you're now stuck to make large crates or w/e this unpractical spinoff half idea is producing, in the end all lose more time for no benefit, vs existing ok state where all works just fine; upgrading the item in some way.. which is practical.. and converts it into a new state, name, storage amount, model, etc... (makes it distinguishable new container) - ok... same item with various shenanigan mechanics - madness and irritability for all Not everyone, only those who want to store a large number of resources. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
