casting spells on gems for sell

[Shrimpiie 3,665]

I actually am more inclined to that idea instead Yamuliss.

 

And you can't say I don't like change because I am fighting for an idea's non-implementation.

[Yamuliss 105]

I actually am more inclined to that idea instead Yamuliss.

 

And you can't say I don't like change because I am fighting for an idea's non-implementation.

All i know is if wurm doesn't have change constant in the game to improve the ql of the game itself it will die like so many others have.

Edited December 17, 2013 by Yamuliss

[EliasTheCrimson 348]

So lets say then that just priests can cast a whole new set of enchants created on just the gems which then could be imbedded by anyone. Not using the same old coc, woa and other enchants but a whole new set of enchants created that could just be used on gems only and then based on gem types.

Implementing a whole new set of spells just so we can have a not-so-original systems of swap-out-able upgrades seems like a weird direction to take the magic system when it's been previously established that enchants are something imbued directly into all items. In other words, the current enchants are in essence a magical item upgrade branch. Does it make any sense to create a whole new type of magical upgrade system that functions differently? Does this added complexity really make the game better compared to just adding those new enchants to the standard enchanting repertoire?

Maybe? I'm genuinely wondering.

Edited December 17, 2013 by EliasTheCrimson

[Shrimpiie 3,665]

All i know is if wurm doesn't have change constant in the game to improve the ql of the game itself it will die like so many others have.

Touche, but I will simply point to the vast amount of changes that have happened within only the last year, so we have had our fair share of adjustments.

[Arkonick 557]

Taxidermy skill would be nice and the ability stuff mobs as furniture and place in a house but lets not even go there LotRol did this and some others have similar systems with this. Lets think of something never seen before and do that. Oh wait we are limited by the game engine we are using lets just give up.

[Olloch 1,318]

-1

[Yamuliss 105]

Implementing a whole new set of spells just so we can have a not-so-original systems of swap-out-able upgrades seems like a weird direction to take the magic system when it's been previously established that enchants are something imbued directly into all items. In other words, the current enchants are in essence a magical item upgrade branch. Does it make any sense to create a whole new type of magical upgrade system that functions differently? Does this added complexity really make the game better compared to just adding those new enchants to the standard enchanting repertoire?

Maybe? I'm genuinely wondering.

No one is gonna be 100% happy on any idea of change to the game. The attitude could be taken well if it's not broken don't fix it. Same concept on well if it's working now lets not play with it to make it better. Thus no change and before long ideas stop flowing out because its rejected 90% the time and the game will slow down and players will leave and before you know it the game is forgotten. This idea of improving the gems is a good idea. I urge devs and so fourth to explore the idea. Im sure when the idea of bridges came fourth so many shot the concept down for one reason or another and im sure when the idea of wagons was proposed there was some who said well we already have carts who needs wagons.Do we say simply to forget change and keep it the way it is for the select few who may disagree with change? Really i don't see harm in giving priests some new spells.

[Shrimpiie 3,665]

No one is gonna be 100% happy on any idea of change to the game. The attitude could be taken well if it's not broken don't fix it. Same concept on well if it's working now lets not play with it to make it better. Thus no change and before long ideas stop flowing out because its rejected 90% the time and the game will slow down and players will leave and before you know it the game is forgotten. This idea of improving the gems is a good idea. I urge devs and so fourth to explore the idea. Im sure when the idea of bridges came fourth so many shot the concept down for one reason or another and im sure when the idea of wagons was proposed there was some who said well we already have carts who needs wagons.Do we say simply to forget change and keep it the way it is for the select few who may disagree with change? Really i don't see harm in giving priests some new spells.

There are ideas that 99% of the populous wants, and ideas that 99% doesn't want, and most are in between. I will agree that a majority of ideas may have had their naysayers, but will point into the opposite direction and mention that just because a few people think this is a good idea it shouldn't be left to rest. There just simply is not enough people saying yes/no to the idea as of yet to make the conjecture that only a select few are disagreeing with the proposed idea.

Edited December 17, 2013 by Shrimpiie

[Arkonick 557]

My point is Shrimpiie almost every idea I have shot across the forums now and in past and not just mine but others that were really good suggestions you have shot down. As well as protunia you 2 and few others  come in and reject a lot of idea's that other players have and well at some point you get under every ones skin.

 

I('m thankful tho that you are not a dev and you really have nothing to do with the development of this game other than you don't like it.

[Yamuliss 105]

This idea at least contributes something to the game. Look at the new trees released. How many of you out there have found a real valuable usage for the new trees and the wood types offered from cutting them down? They don't really look that different do they once they are cut and made into planks, it all looks like pine? How many shot down the idea of the new trees before they was released? I don't see how that feature of the new trees contributed to anything within the game but i did not reject the idea for it was new and added at least something more to the game.

[Shrimpiie 3,665]

To some they are really good suggestions yet to others they may not be so. Because I downvote ideas I do not think fir the direction of Wurm that makes me a bad guy? I do not see how you can justify that. I don't wish to be a Dev, and I feel that a lot in this game can be developed of course, I just don't feel that the general group of ideas over the past half year has really been of good quality. That is my opinion and my opinion alone, so pointing me as a bad guy for my view of the game is not a fair way to go about things.

[Arkonick 557]

Never tried to point you as the bad guy but just basically trying to say you don't like it vote it down end it there. But just keep a open mind if a new idea brings in just 100 players that's 100 possible subbing players and new people and friends to make. It is never a bad idea for any thing unless it's trying to alter the game in a direction that is un called for and examples would be.

 

guns, machine guns, rockets, trains etc...  these are just ideas that should never be brought to a forum but any thing in between that fits should be given a long consideration. Reading then  posting you had what 1 min to think no thought of what the pros or cons would be no weighing of what else could be developed out of it.

 

That is why I get angry at quick shot downs of idea's cause  there was no time to even sleep on it and think about it for a bit before coming to a final .

[Shrimpiie 3,665]

Well I would be a hypocrite if I simply threw a -1 without stating my though process on it. Most ideas that pop onto the forums, have been suggested before, so usually there is not much thought required for a reply to them. I see this idea and, my initial impression is one of non-agreement to it. I think on said idea a little, and believe me, I have given it some honest thought already, and posted my thoughts. This never means that my opinions can't be swayed, or that I am willing to talk about the idea, and perhaps alter it slightly with my own thoughts at a later point after some other ideas have been injected into the thread. To be fair also, it was an hour and a half after the idea was posted until I placed my thoughts into the thread, and I had been on the forums the whole time, so I feel that is at minimum a sufficient time to sit on it.

[Druidnature 1,118]

Never tried to point you as the bad guy but just basically trying to say you don't like it vote it down end it there. But just keep a open mind if a new idea brings in just 100 players that's 100 possible subbing players and new people and friends to make. It is never a bad idea for any thing unless it's trying to alter the game in a direction that is un called for and examples would be.

 

guns, machine guns, rockets, trains etc...  these are just ideas that should never be brought to a forum but any thing in between that fits should be given a long consideration. Reading then  posting you had what 1 min to think no thought of what the pros or cons would be no weighing of what else could be developed out of it.

 

That is why I get angry at quick shot downs of idea's cause  there was no time to even sleep on it and think about it for a bit before coming to a final .

 

And what if it causes all your high end priest to leave because there enchants aren't worth anything? heh.

 

Still a terrible idea after reading all of it, enchants should never be universal for people unless they themselves have the priest. as for people wanting value of gems, they have a ton of value without you being a priest, You give them to a priest, priest gives you the enchanted item, Go look at the market section.

 

And this wouldn't help you none priest anyway, the priest still has to take your gem and cast on it, it would be no different then now except to allow priest to get a huge stock of them, cast straight 90+ spells, and sell them to let people put em on any item they want.

 

Even with limiting the spells to the ql, it's not going to work out well for the market that's already pretty bad off.

 

Just my Priest PoV.

[Yamuliss 105]

And what if it causes all your high end priest to leave because there enchants aren't worth anything? heh.

 

Still a terrible idea after reading all of it, enchants should never be universal for people unless they themselves have the priest. as for people wanting value of gems, they have a ton of value without you being a priest, You give them to a priest, priest gives you the enchanted item, Go look at the market section.

 

And this wouldn't help you none priest anyway, the priest still has to take your gem and cast on it, it would be no different then now except to allow priest to get a huge stock of them, cast straight 90+ spells, and sell them to let people put em on any item they want.

 

Even with limiting the spells to the ql, it's not going to work out well for the market that's already pretty bad off.

 

Just my Priest PoV.

I hear a lot negative comments on the idea but no real offers of your own ideas in place others left so then why not leave it alone? I see nothing wrong giving priest more spells dedicated to the gems only which in return would allow any player to inbed them into any item they choose to. This  adds so much to the game. Im sorry but i disagree with all the nay saying on this idea.  Gems are worthless at this point in the game. Some my get 2 c per ql for higher ql gems and 3 c per ql for lower ql gems but in reality if your looking to sell your gems do not plan on getting more then 1.5 c per higher QL gems and 2c per ql on lower ql gems the way the market is right now. Besides what any buyer of gems is gonna want to get them for to flip a profit is alot less then what these people are saying they can sell them for. Priests have few spells/enchants they can do and in my opinion need more perhaps each priest type being allowed to enchant certain gems with there own unique traits it only adds flavor to the game. For those of you who play the game to profit from the game, such an idea like this goes a long way in creating new areas to earn in game currency but what do i know, shoot yourself in the foot and down play it as a really bad idea. After all i seen how well the recent changes to the game has done thus far and yet not any of them really has produced a flux in additional ways to really earn ingame coin and yet this idea does for everyone. #1 it encourages more people to make priests play them and get them to this level to use the new feature to profit from it. #2 gets mining on a large scale around all servers back up and running and item crafting. #3 with the sell of new items comes the need for ingame currency to purchase the items, Silver becomes highly in demand and rolf sees an increase in silver purchases as well as 2nd and even 3rd toons for people being created on all servers. #4 Gem worth goes way up and is in demand. So tell me again how is this a bad thing? You people don't like to sell stuff?

[Shrimpiie 3,665]

I'll just say that, because there is negative reviews, it does not mean a counter proposal is required.

 

You disagree with any naysay in this idea, congratulations on that, that does not change opinion nor carry weight as a valid argument. It is made seem that this idea is an absolute must have, yet it is not. I do see a very valid point in what Druid said, and that is that you will then get priests creating huge stocks of high quality enchantments, and thus making lower enchantments' value diminish greatly. How high a price can one possibly charge for a cast that is just a use away from getting a perfect 90+ cast. As it stands now you must go through quite a large number of casts until you get a high valued one, and this is to a degree random on when you will pop a 90, as it would not be on demand. With having many Gems available with the casts pre-stored, then you can pull out a 90 cast whenever you choose. So just leave the placing of the casts onto items to the priests, as if this were to be implemented, priests would turn into nothing but simple batteries, casting until you have a large supply of high enchantments. Then you just head over to the market section of the forums, buy a few gems and poof, you have nearly cut out the middle priest.

Edited December 17, 2013 by Shrimpiie

[Druidnature 1,118]

I hear a lot negative comments on the idea but no real offers of your own ideas in place others left so then why not leave it alone? I see nothing wrong giving priest more spells dedicated to the gems only which in return would allow any player to inbed them into any item they choose to. This adds so much to the game. Im sorry but i disagree with all the nay saying on this idea. Gems are worthless at this point in the game. Some my get 2 c per ql for higher ql gems and 3 c per ql for lower ql gems but in reality if your looking to sell your gems do not plan on getting more then 1.5 c per higher QL gems and 2c per ql on lower ql gems the way the market is right now. Besides what any buyer of gems is gonna want to get them for to flip a profit is alot less then what these people are saying they can sell them for. Priests have few spells/enchants they can do and in my opinion need more perhaps each priest type being allowed to enchant certain gems with there own unique traits it only adds flavor to the game. For those of you who play the game to profit from the game, such an idea like this goes a long way in creating new areas to earn in game currency but what do i know, shoot yourself in the foot and down play it as a really bad idea. After all i seen how well the recent changes to the game has done thus far and yet not any of them really has produced a flux in additional ways to really earn ingame coin and yet this idea does for everyone. #1 it encourages more people to make priests play them and get them to this level to use the new feature to profit from it. #2 gets mining on a large scale around all servers back up and running and item crafting. #3 with the sell of new items comes the need for ingame currency to purchase the items, Silver becomes highly in demand and rolf sees an increase in silver purchases as well as 2nd and even 3rd toons for people being created on all servers. #4 Gem worth goes way up and is in demand. So tell me again how is this a bad thing? You people don't like to sell stuff?

I'm offering no idea for them on my own because gems are in the perfect spot without being touched.

Right now you are focusing on there money value, stop paying attentions to the copper value. Their real value is trading, god forbid someone actually trades though.

Right now, people trade gems for a selected tool with the enchantment(s) they want on it. Which is technically how these new gems would work. Except as I said you'd have 1000 sitting for 0 value at the end of the day within 3 months.

Look at any other game that has had anything similar to it - as soon as everyone has the "max skill" which a lot of priest can already cast 3-4 90s in a few hours time the market gets flooded, prices then drop to bottom dolor. In wurms case you just destroyed a very high end priest and give no reason for leveling a priest unless you enjoy playing with combat spells/. Few of the other ones.

I'd like to see the priest that are able to cast these 90+ currently, or even 40-50+ talk about it. Because we'd be the ones losing out big time, while everyone else gets "free" none worked for enchants.

I'm not trying to say anyone should have never thought of the idea, or anything like that. I'm just saying it's not good for a priest player in any way. It benefits those without priest in the start, until nobody wants to be a priest anymore because of how worthless it is to waste hundreds upon hundreds of days time & euros to level them.

Also if this happened, how would priest level their channeling? Or store favor?

I hope to see never a universal "enchant holder"

[Rathgar 959]

-1 to this idea.

 

If you think about it for a minute, its almost redundant.

 

1 - Only priests should be able to imbue items with spells.

2 - You can already store favor (raw power) into gems as a priest.

3 - Gems DO have value, and a very important role, particularly, but not exclusively, for priests.

4 - Over the few people posting in this suggestion, Id say the consensum is negative.

 

About myself.

I am NOT  a priest

I was Vynora priest and Fo priest.

I have priests amongst my villagers.

[Yamuliss 105]

hmm, oh well keep it the way it it is then!

[rosedragon 2,282]

-1 It make the low level priests unable to compete with the high level priests as people can choose what items they want theirs 101 spell gem enchanted toward. It simplify the system and thus reduce the variety of enchants on the market. 

 

Maybe different idea to give gems more use ..