Posted May 24, 2013 GV is the best comparison we have for the current suggestion. It was safer, with only bears at worst to deal with. And it is a fact that it killed subscriptions simply because 20 skill was good enough for everything there. What makes you think people will pay to play on a totally safe server? They didn't last time when it was only partially safe, and I see nothing in this idea that would induce players on this server to pay to play, simply because skills would not matter very much at all. Some would pay, but not enough to keep it going. Be honest, people are really cheap, and any chance to get something for free they will take it. As to Farmville, sure it is a popular game. If you want to play Farmville, go ahead. But this is not Farmville, it is Wurm. Stop trying to make it into something else and go play something else. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 24, 2013 Wurms not for everyone, no need to change it for the handful Please stop saying this same thing again and again. He didn't change wurm when he added Epic. use some logic. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 24, 2013 (edited) GV is the best comparison we have for the current suggestion. It was safer, with only bears at worst to deal with. And it is a fact that it killed subscriptions simply because 20 skill was good enough for everything there. What makes you think people will pay to play on a totally safe server? They didn't last time when it was only partially safe, and I see nothing in this idea that would induce players on this server to pay to play, simply because skills would not matter very much at all. Some would pay, but not enough to keep it going. Be honest, people are really cheap, and any chance to get something for free they will take it. As to Farmville, sure it is a popular game. If you want to play Farmville, go ahead. But this is not Farmville, it is Wurm. Stop trying to make it into something else and go play something else. You couldn't be premium on GV. Nough said. WE AREN"T TRYING TO MAKE WURM SOMETHING ELSE! We are asking for a different Wurmverse. Not to change the existing Wurmverse. Rolf did it with Epic, he can go the polar opposite with "Wurmville" Epic did not destroy Wurm. Neither would a non-agro non-attached server. Edited May 24, 2013 by Jarosz Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 24, 2013 You couldn't be premium on GV. Nough said. And it was so easy no one wanted to pay prem, killing subscriptions. My point is still 100% valid. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 24, 2013 GV had mobs and it was dangerous, period. It failed because there was no pressure to build bigger and better things. As to Farmville, sure it is a popular game. If you want to play Farmville, go ahead. But this is not Farmville, it is Wurm. Stop trying to make it into something else and go play something else.lol, its funny you actually think I'm going to list to this kind of comment. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 24, 2013 (edited) And it was so easy no one wanted to pay prem, killing subscriptions. My point is still 100% valid. Because you had to permanently leave GV to go premium and/or play a different style. My suggestion is still 100% valid. Implementation is everything. And the coding already exists. Edited May 24, 2013 by Jarosz Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 24, 2013 I can remember a time back on JKH where the mob population where so few that it was likely safer than GV. It was a F2P server and the driving force for folks to get premium then is the same as it is now; A desire to build bigger, faster and better. When I was considering getting premiums back in NewTown 6 or s years ago I wasn't thinking how if I had premium I could fight these mobs. NO!, I was dreaming of the things I would construct. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 24, 2013 GV had mobs and it was dangerous, period. It failed because there was no pressure to build bigger and better things. lol, its funny you actually think I'm going to list to this kind of comment. Mobs on GV were not all that dangerous, after 2 weeks you could take on anything on the server. And you are right, with no pressure for bigger and better, it was a failure. This suggestion is to make a server totally safe, and to allow non-prems? Again I ask, what is their incentive to pay to play? Never underestimate how cheap people can be. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 24, 2013 Mobs on GV were not all that dangerous, after 2 weeks you could take on anything on the server. And you are right, with no pressure for bigger and better, it was a failure. This suggestion is to make a server totally safe, and to allow non-prems? Again I ask, what is their incentive to pay to play? Never underestimate how cheap people can be. Whats the inventive on Freedom?? You can kill anything with 20 FS and good armor. there is no limit to the QL of items a F2P character can have. Many people don't give wurm 2 weeks. That is my point. day 1 they die 20 times to stupid rats/cats/wolves... and never give it a day 2. Do you understand that? the majority of players who try Wurm stop playing before ending their first day. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 24, 2013 I don't understand why people can't accept that other players may have a different opinion about what's fun (Ronnie is a prime example). Games become successful by offering experiences that fulfill current and potential customer desires. Telling folks how to play is not in the spirit of a sandbox game. Denying folks the opportunity to enjoy a different type of gaming environment just because it doesn't fit owns selfish opinion about what would should be doesn't fit the sandbox theme either. The only potential valid argument against a non-aggro server has to do with a cost benefit analysis. Will enough players want such a place to justify the costs of making it, and (imo) there will definitely be enough. I think some people have issues with the possibility of development resources being diverted form the mainstream when there are so many things that still need work. Like there shouldn't be any new servers until the lag/memory leaks/client crashes/graphics issues/optimization/and others are properly addressed. There are a lot of questions that would need to be answered by people more in the know than us. Ability to spawn and maintain a modified version of the game without extensive diversion in the development tree and as such division of development resources (ie how hard would it be to remove all agro and/or the higher FS mobs themselves and be able to implement the same patches as other servers). How to manage mob spawns/populations (if you keep all creatures) when some just won't be hunted enough to keep them low (unless you plan to lower their FS too). And others. I don't really care if they create a server like that as long as the others don't suffer for it. Is that selfish? Is self preservation selfish? I don't think so. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 24, 2013 Again I ask, what is their incentive to pay to play? Never underestimate how cheap people can be. The incentive is to build bigger and better things: to show off that 15 story 6x6 building, to brag to others how you got 99 blacksmithing skill, to build 4 lane highways from slabs across the server, to surface mine a side of a mount away to make a road, to make 3 lane wide 100's of tiles long tunnels through mountains, to build giant race tracks for events, to build giant arenas to duel in, to breed a herd of rainbow colored deer, to climb the tallest mountain surface mine it flat for a deed, to build 1500 dirt's high dirt spires, to make your own island dropping dirt from a carvel, to make a fleet of large ships, ALL OF WHICH NEED PREMIUM! It's obvious at this point that you simply can't accept that mobs aren't important. Likewise I can say that I simply won't accept that without them folks turn into freeloaders. Also unlike Jaroz, I think the server should be connected to the Freedom cluster so players can go to another server if they decided no-aggro isn't their cup of tea. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 24, 2013 This is strictly a curiosity question, I have never tried it the other way since I don't read languages other than english. Does the following link correctly translate the web pages? If so maybe this ability could be useful for people that aren't aware it exists? http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=en&tl=sv&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wurmpedia.com%2F&act=url Hehe, no. It works for simple stuff sometimes but it can produce pretty funny results You can try it yourself by translating a page in another language into English... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 24, 2013 (edited) I think some people have issues with the possibility of development resources being diverted form the mainstream when there are so many things that still need work. Like there shouldn't be any new servers until the lag/memory leaks/client crashes/graphics issues/optimization/and others are properly addressed. I don't really care if they create a server like that as long as the others don't suffer for it. Is that selfish? Is self preservation selfish? I don't think so. Yea, The dev team is already stretched very thin. We don't know how much customization it would take and we don't really have the population now to add more servers. But if the idea doesn't require much change and can bring in more income it would be a good choice. I wonder what would happen if they set the aggro cap to 0. I'm pretty sure that lairs would continue to force spawn mobs. So we would need custom code to prevent their creation on non-aggor. We also need a way to get furs Edited May 24, 2013 by joedobo Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 24, 2013 I think some people have issues with the possibility of development resources being diverted form the mainstream when there are so many things that still need work. Like there shouldn't be any new servers until the lag/memory leaks/client crashes/graphics issues/optimization/and others are properly addressed. There are a lot of questions that would need to be answered by people more in the know than us. Ability to spawn and maintain a modified version of the game without extensive diversion in the development tree and as such division of development resources (ie how hard would it be to remove all agro and/or the higher FS mobs themselves and be able to implement the same patches as other servers). How to manage mob spawns/populations (if you keep all creatures) when some just won't be hunted enough to keep them low (unless you plan to lower their FS too). And others. I don't really care if they create a server like that as long as the others don't suffer for it. Is that selfish? Is self preservation selfish? I don't think so. Code exists already. The argument becomes "what do we develop more, the majority of players, or the "niche" players"Players decide what they want to play. If Wurmville becomes more popular (lots lots more) then development might be shifted. If it proves to be a success, then those profits could go towards improving the systems that are currently lacking on PvP/PvE servers. IE A wurmville cluster could very well finance a new fight system. The trade/trader/merchant system would be looked at as well. Establishing an exploratory server with no-agro isn't difficult. Build it and they will come, or they won't. Rolf has the resources to do it, and has the code pre-existing with it. Set Troll Spawn = 0 (yes, he can control that... Animal spawns are not as complicated as you think... the AI is what is complicated) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 24, 2013 The incentive is to build bigger and better things: to show off that 15 story 6x6 building, to brag to others how you got 99 blacksmithing skill, to build 4 lane highways from slabs across the server, to surface mine a side of a mount away to make a road, to make 3 lane wide 100's of tiles long tunnels through mountains, to build giant race tracks for events, to build giant arenas to duel in, to breed a herd of rainbow colored deer, to climb the tallest mountain surface mine it flat for a deed, to build 1500 dirt's high dirt spires, to make your own island dropping dirt from a carvel, to make a fleet of large ships, ALL OF WHICH NEED PREMIUM! It's obvious at this point that you simply can't accept that mobs aren't important. Likewise I can say that I simply won't accept that without them folks turn into freeloaders. Also unlike Jaroz, I think the server should be connected to the Freedom cluster so players can go to another server if they decided no-aggro isn't their cup of tea. I don't think they should co-mingle. It should be handled like Epic accounts. If you want to play on it, you have a secondary skill tree. This is to insure there is no easy skill gain (especially if you wanted faster skill/timers on Wurmville) Keeping it separate opens up a lot more options. Attaching it limits the possibilities. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 24, 2013 Yea, The dev team is already stretched very thin. We don't know how much customization it would take and we don't really have the population now to add more servers. But if the idea doesn't require much change and can bring in more income it would be a good choice. I wonder what would happen if they set the aggro cap to 0. I'm pretty sure that lairs would continue to force spawn mobs. So we would need custom code to prevent their creation on non-aggor. We also need a way to get furs You can get furs from non-agro animals. And if not, making a new non-agro fur bearing animal isn't outside of the scope of existing game play. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 24, 2013 Could always play on the test server I guess Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 24, 2013 Could always play on the test server I guess it is frowned upon and a bannable offense to "establish" anything on the Test server. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 24, 2013 The incentive is to build bigger and better things: to show off that 15 story 6x6 building, to brag to others how you got 99 blacksmithing skill, to build 4 lane highways from slabs across the server, to surface mine a side of a mount away to make a road, to make 3 lane wide 100's of tiles long tunnels through mountains, to build giant race tracks for events, to build giant arenas to duel in, to breed a herd of rainbow colored deer, to climb the tallest mountain surface mine it flat for a deed, to build 1500 dirt's high dirt spires, to make your own island dropping dirt from a carvel, to make a fleet of large ships, ALL OF WHICH NEED PREMIUM! It's obvious at this point that you simply can't accept that mobs aren't important. Likewise I can say that I simply won't accept that without them folks turn into freeloaders. Also unlike Jaroz, I think the server should be connected to the Freedom cluster so players can go to another server if they decided no-aggro isn't their cup of tea. I've thought about that, and it could get some to pay prem for a while. But I don't think enough would, and more likely only for a while, till they get what they want built. Then the incentive goes away again, as all gets built and the extra skill is not needed anymore. I see a big possibility of players who pay until they are set up, then only buying silver to keep deeds going. I also see a faster boredom rate, as it would be to easy and fast to get everything done. I see it too often on the pve servers already. A new player gets some help from experienced players in getting set up. They are safe and set up very quickly. Then they get bored with the day to day of working the deed, and still afraid to go out in the world because they did not get skills up for fighting. Next thing you know there is another abandoned deed we have to wait for a year for the upkeep to expire. No, this idea would not help with subscriptions. More may join at first, but it would get boring much quicker than it does now, so there would also be a higher rate of drops later. As to players that die 20 times in 2 days and quit, do we really want to cater to them? These are the players that expect to get to the top fast and are not willing to read the wiki to see how the game should be played. While everyone has a playing style, they all play under the same rules on the same servers now. Setting up more and more servers with different rules for different styles of gameplay is just a headache for the staff and will not get the revenues you seem to expect. No game is for everyone and you can't make Wurm into such a game. There is an old saying that if you make an OS that any idiot can use only an idiot would use it. Well, the same goes for games. This has always been a slow paced, harsh game. That is what attracted me to it. I'm tired of games I can master in a short time, it gets boring and I find myself looking for another game. This game has kept my attention for 5 years now and I still have lots to master. That is why I like this game and that is why I will always argue against making it more like other games. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 24, 2013 (edited) A land without danger would kill off the need for deeds, players would just fence off land with 1tile gatehouses to make it an legal enclosure. With out the silver use for placing and tax for deeds the server would make next to nothing. Along with since a level 4 carpenter character can mak a 1tile house and theres no limit to how long a fence can be. So the need to go paid is cut drastically. And seeing as you wont need to protect yourself theres no need for fighting over 20, or weapon or armour smithing skills over 20, seeing as you can kill a horse/bull naked. Without any danger you get bored, with out any risk you get bored. Just staring at the screen out in the wilderness without having to look over your shoulder gets boring. Why open a server that will last a few months with next to no profit for the host? Sure, there maybe 200players on that server for a month or two. But once your establish you'll get bored and move on. Since theres no dangers, And it only takes about a week to get yourself a fully self supporting area built up. What will you do after that? Skills are easy enough work on one for 30-40hours and it'll be 70. And seeing theres 720hours in a month. Even the most casual player could have 2skills at lvl70 before the end of their first month. I can go on for days why this idea would not work. Risk free games are going out of style. Why should Rolf wast man power and funds on a dying game play? Edited May 24, 2013 by Ronnie 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 24, 2013 (edited) A land without danger would kill off the need for deeds, players would just fence off land with 1tile gatehouses to make it an legal enclosure. With out the silver use for placing and tax for deeds the server would make next to nothing. Along with since a level 4 carpenter character can mak a 1tile house and theres no limit to how long a fence can be. So the need to go paid is cut drastically. And seeing as you wont need to protect yourself theres no need for fighting over 20, or weapon or armour smithing skills over 20, seeing as you can kill a horse/bull naked. Without any danger you get bored, with out any risk you get bored. Just staring at the screen out in the wilderness without having to look over your shoulder gets boring. Why open a server that will last a few months with next to no profit for the host? Sure, there maybe 200players on that server for a month or two. But once your establish you'll get bored and move on. Since theres no dangers, And it only takes about a week to get yourself a fully self supporting area built up. What will you do after that? Skills are easy enough work on one for 30-40hours and it'll be 70. And seeing theres 720hours in a month. Even the most casual player could have 2skills at lvl70 before the end of their first month. I can go on for days why this idea would not work. Risk free games are going out of style. Why should Rolf wast man power and funds on a dying game play? Deeds provide decay prevention. Good luck maintaining all of that without deeds. (I just find this funny, because I was in the same boat as you guys when Rolf started talking about Freedom server and securing it away from Wild... Looks like the players thought otherwise. I am glad Rolf didn't listen to me and other hardcore players) http://www.wurmpedia.com/index.php/Propaganda What you guys don't seem to get. Is that once they get bored, they have 3 different server types of varying difficulty to attempt after mastering the non-agro environment. If it doesn't cost them anything more, and they can keep their name at least, they could very well sign into a different server. It was always assumed that those who got bored with PvE would go for PvP... and a lot do (more quit because they have no interest in the fighting system). Chances are, when someone masters the Wurm logic (not the actual skill levels) they could transfer to another server. For those who never want to face PvE, they would remain. The Economy and Politics is enough to keep many Wurm players playing. Only a small minority in game actually find the "fighting" system to be entertaining. This is a large pool of players we are talking about that play for less than a week and quit because of the learning curve. I understand the stand-off-ish nature of the Wurm Community. "Its our gem... blah blah blah" Edited May 24, 2013 by Jarosz Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 24, 2013 On GV lots of players stayed around, even though they could not have deeds and decay was 3x normal. You still underestimate greed and laziness. Greed, if they don't have to pay they won't, and laziness in that once they are bored they will quit rather than start over on another server that they would have to redo their skills on (like I said before, get your skills on a safe server and no one will want you to come to their server with those skills). And I really don't care too much about those that quit within a week. You really cannot make the game to their liking without changing what this game is about. Likely they would not stay around too long anyway, no matter how many changes you make. The learning curve is not easy, and it is meant to be that way. It sorts out the hard core types that enjoy a game like this from the masses who just like to win fast. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 24, 2013 On GV lots of players stayed around, even though they could not have deeds and decay was 3x normal. You still underestimate greed and laziness. Greed, if they don't have to pay they won't, and laziness in that once they are bored they will quit rather than start over on another server that they would have to redo their skills on (like I said before, get your skills on a safe server and no one will want you to come to their server with those skills). And I really don't care too much about those that quit within a week. You really cannot make the game to their liking without changing what this game is about. Likely they would not stay around too long anyway, no matter how many changes you make. The learning curve is not easy, and it is meant to be that way. It sorts out the hard core types that enjoy a game like this from the masses who just like to win fast. F2P exists on Freedom/Chaos (which you think is easy enough) Creating a new server (unattached) would not effect your game play. F2P are just as lazy and greedy on existing servers as they were on GV (the majority of them are not... GV had 45 characters before it was converted to Tutorial) GV is not a good comparison. The only good comparison would be a server with 0 aggro... which has never happened unless you go WAAAAY back to Alpha. In that case, it was popular and wasn't until much later that animals were added to the game at all. Are you saying you'd rather keep the PvE the way it is in order to weed out F2P characters at the cost of paying customers down the road? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 24, 2013 (edited) F2P exists on Freedom/Chaos (which you think is easy enough) Creating a new server (unattached) would not effect your game play. F2P are just as lazy and greedy on existing servers as they were on GV (the majority of them are not... GV had 45 characters before it was converted to Tutorial) GV is not a good comparison. The only good comparison would be a server with 0 aggro... which has never happened unless you go WAAAAY back to Alpha. In that case, it was popular and wasn't until much later that animals were added to the game at all. Are you saying you'd rather keep the PvE the way it is in order to weed out F2P characters at the cost of paying customers down the road? Yes, as it will also sort out the whiners. Edited May 24, 2013 by Vroomfondel Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted May 24, 2013 Yes, as it will also sort out the whiners. Interesting. Are you a PVPer? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
