Game Development: Tough Jugs

[Axyx]

You can just take down the gates if you're that worried about it. It's super easy. Just use the destroy feature on the gate and corner posts. That should solve your odd livestock problem with ease.

You need a wrecking ball to destroy a palisade. Not that you would necessarily want a hole in it, even if it just allows access to the animal section of the village.

If you are using Palisades as your paddock walls, you're probably doing it wrong.

[vatas]

They're talking about hypothetical scenario where they want to expel livestock from their base altogether. You can bash animal enclosure(s) roundpole/stone fence gates and rebuild them after you're done with the process, but only way out of properly built base is through Palisade or Brickwall gates.

[SnuggleSnail]

It seems you forgot to make the jugs fit in belts.

^

[vatas]

I'm under impression that Jugs are effectively meant to be buckets that you can carry in inventory. They even have the same capacity/size ratio.

I was mostly thinking the above in terms of crafting purposes, but of course this means that if you absolutely have to carry as much water as possible in PvP fight, you now need to have Troll Belt loaded with Waterskins and inventory filled with Jugs.

[SnuggleSnail]

Outside of skii fights or the first two weeks of the world nobody is carrying water in their inventory. For PVP I can only rly see jugs being used during the snakeskin/grand belt era. Once you get a troll belt it wouldn't be the difference between 75L/belt and 125L/belt, it would just mean you have room for some tools/QOL stuff in your belt.

[Nightdawg]

Outside of skii fights or the first two weeks of the world nobody is carrying water in their inventory. For PVP I can only rly see jugs being used during the snakeskin/grand belt era. Once you get a troll belt it wouldn't be the difference between 75L/belt and 125L/belt, it would just mean you have room for some tools/QOL stuff in your belt.

If anything, this would help scrubs that can't kill a troll after playing the game for 12 years.
And we've seen how they react when it comes to stuff that would help them. So fuck them.

[vatas]

And we've seen how they react when it comes to stuff that would help them. So fuck them.

I can't remember any cases of "update that helps noobs drops, noobs complain." Can I ask for any examples?

[DonVelD]

And we've seen how they react when it comes to stuff that would help them. So fuck them.

I can't remember any cases of "update that helps noobs drops, noobs complain." Can I ask for any examples?

Not exactly an update but remember the case with "we will disable winter and try to work on it so its actually enjoyable" and people argued against it because muh realism. It'd favor a shitton of new players just starting out in winter + a lot of other people would actually enjoy the lack of winter at the current state.
viewtopic.php?f=39&t=71821

Also there was a suggestion from Nightdawg of searching down players so you don't have to KO them in order to see their loot, which would really benefit them or just wouldn't change anything but the less lethal/punishing option would be there. Wouldn't you know it - the same people that it would benefit cried that it'd favor the aggressor and/or encourage behavior like that.
viewtopic.php?f=48&t=72365

[VDZ]

Also there was a suggestion from Nightdawg of searching down players so you don't have to KO them in order to see their loot, which would really benefit them or just wouldn't change anything but the less lethal/punishing option would be there. Wouldn't you know it - the same people that it would benefit cried that it'd favor the aggressor and/or encourage behavior like that.
viewtopic.php?f=48&t=72365

No, the original suggestion was that, if the victim consented, you wouldn't need to KO them to steal their loot. There's a big difference there. It would require the victim to give up on running away in hopes that the attacker would only steal their shit without KOing them (the decision is left up to the attacker, who would also retain the current option of KOing the victim). Basically, it would make mugging far more convenient for the attacker (which would inherently encourage mugging by lowering the time/effort threshold), and Nightdawg was framing it as something he suggested out of the goodness of his heart for the poor sprucecaps, without any self-interest. From the most optimistic perspective, it was just a poorly-conceived idea that would not significantly help victims in practice. If you want to think more pessimistically, a griefer asked for a feature to make griefing take less effort.

Being able to simply view the inventory so you can decide beforehand whether the victim is worth mugging or not was exactly what I suggested:

Anyways, we're going in circles, so let me suggest an alternative instead: If the problem is "I want to know if the sprucecap has anything worth stealing before I KO them", why not instead add a mechanic that allows you to somehow view a hearthling's inventory (without their consent, and without being able to take anything from it) like Mulamishne hinted at earlier? It could be a minor criminal act requiring you to touch the player, or perhaps a combat move (maybe even a maneuver?) that people could use to scout out mugging targets, giving away their intent without immediately committing to knocking out the victim and stealing their shit? If the problem you want to solve is that you don't want to go through the whole mugging process just to see if they have anything worth stealing, this should work without their consent, and even if they try to run. Furthermore, finding their inventory devoid of valuables might actually encourage muggers to drop combat (so as to not waste time) and let their target get away. This should work given the intentions of both parties, and should be beneficial to both parties (with the exception of those regularly walking around with pearls in their inventories, but in that case you're just asking for it).

It was immediately after that post that Nightdawg threw a temper tantrum and deleted his post.

[DonVelD]

Also there was a suggestion from Nightdawg of searching down players so you don't have to KO them in order to see their loot, which would really benefit them or just wouldn't change anything but the less lethal/punishing option would be there. Wouldn't you know it - the same people that it would benefit cried that it'd favor the aggressor and/or encourage behavior like that.
viewtopic.php?f=48&t=72365

No, the original suggestion was that, if the victim consented, you wouldn't need to KO them to steal their loot. There's a big difference there. It would require the victim to give up on running away in hopes that the attacker would only steal their shit without KOing them (the decision is left up to the attacker, who would also retain the current option of KOing the victim). Basically, it would make mugging far more convenient for the attacker (which would inherently encourage mugging by lowering the time/effort threshold), and Nightdawg was framing it as something he suggested out of the goodness of his heart for the poor sprucecaps, without any self-interest. From the most optimistic perspective, it was just a poorly-conceived idea that would not significantly help victims in practice. If you want to think more pessimistically, a griefer asked for a feature to make griefing take less effort.

Being able to simply view the inventory so you can decide beforehand whether the victim is worth mugging or not was exactly what I suggested:

Anyways, we're going in circles, so let me suggest an alternative instead: If the problem is "I want to know if the sprucecap has anything worth stealing before I KO them", why not instead add a mechanic that allows you to somehow view a hearthling's inventory (without their consent, and without being able to take anything from it) like Mulamishne hinted at earlier? It could be a minor criminal act requiring you to touch the player, or perhaps a combat move (maybe even a maneuver?) that people could use to scout out mugging targets, giving away their intent without immediately committing to knocking out the victim and stealing their shit? If the problem you want to solve is that you don't want to go through the whole mugging process just to see if they have anything worth stealing, this should work without their consent, and even if they try to run. Furthermore, finding their inventory devoid of valuables might actually encourage muggers to drop combat (so as to not waste time) and let their target get away. This should work given the intentions of both parties, and should be beneficial to both parties (with the exception of those regularly walking around with pearls in their inventories, but in that case you're just asking for it).

It was immediately after that post that Nightdawg threw a temper tantrum and deleted his post.

Sorry but you are the sprucecap that ruined the whole thread so your opinion and anything you just wrote can be discarded, cheers.