Jump to content
Eternal Lands Official Forums


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Burn

  • Rank
  • Birthday 04/18/1970

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

1514 profile views
  1. Running toggle

    That sounds like a whole lot of making running worse. Forced stopping and sitting? May as well just not run at all. There is literally no circumstance where you could say forced stops of running somehow improves using it.
  2. Map Editor - Video Tutorial Series

    Playlist for the tutorials: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4LMY-0urQYVeDlGRPFcBh1_tfbVT2tuO BONUS VIDEO - The complete creation of the insides of a building from start to finish. This takes a break from the tutorial series to show all the work that goes into creating the insides of a small house, including the work not covered in the tutorials yet such as def file markup. It not only shows how the work is done, but also the thought process as to what is inside this particular building and why. New 1.9.6 content - This is the insides for one of the currently unenterable houses in SRM, so the final work will be part of the new additions coming in 1.9.6.
  3. Enriched Essences

    The random enriched is more interesting. Enrichment stone was only brought up because the randomization would require rewriting code to allow for random, not just a mix addition which just requires adding the mix parameters. And I'm not sure the time and effort would be put into rewriting the code for one mix at this point given the current status of updates.
  4. And no care was given. If you want to shut down discussion just because you disagree, that's your problem, and yours alone. * YOU have taken it upon yourself to add safe areas. No. I have posted a suggestion for designating places that are already treated by players as safe areas to be marked as such. * YOU have taken it upon yourself to determine what these safe areas are to be. No. I have taken it upon myself to list the areas PLAYERS have been treating as safe areas for years now. Players made the list not me, with the exception of Zirakinbar which is new. * Have YOU asked any of the mods who run invasions for a list of where they would not normally put hostile mobs? It doesn't matter. If you have a tiny list of safe areas, then none of the other locations matter. * Have YOU asked for player discussion as to what safe areas should be? That would be the purpose of putting this on the forum instead of just sending a Facebook PM to radu. So far, you've been completely unhelpful, doing nothing but whining that it might slightly limit you in some way. * No? Then why on earth are you surprised when people have a pop at you? What I'm not surprised about is the biggest complaint being that moderators might be even remotely limited in any way... over places that are already not invaded because there's almost always people in them. Even coming from someone who claims they never "willingly go after AFKers". Now, Aislinn and I seem to have come to an agreement that inside storages and a safe house near outside storages is acceptable. That's literally all that's being discussed at this point. We managed to get that far. What part of that are you complaining about?
  5. What part of "suggestions" are you not understanding? This isn't a change... yet. It's a suggestion. NAME OF THE FORUM. We don't block talk just because you don't like it. Instead of talking about it, you're complaining that you can't do what you want. Every suggestion is a possible change. Your post is "change is bad, so don't discuss suggestions". I gave a starting point. Not from "places of my choosing", but places people already have been using for years. You can't go in Nk house by storage and not see AFKers. Or the houses north of VotD storage. Or the EVTR tavern. Not my choices, but what the players use. You actually know this. The only one I actually "picked" is Zirakinbar, and that's because it's the newest storage. And I have a place opening for it in the next update. But overall, it's the players who chose these places. Over a course of many years. It's already been whittled down, and now for some reason you're saying it can't be discusssed at all because it takes away an incredibly tiny portion of the overall maps and that for some reason pisses you off to no end. I see nothing of value coming from you other than that you fear change, especially if it makes even the tiniest dent into what mods might be able to do. Every single update has added more places for you to invade than this tiny list of places. And as such, I can't care. If no one gets to discuss things, start with you.
  6. Enriched Essences

    Interesting use, falls in line with similar things already in-game like perk stones + token to get a RIG or whatever that does. Sounds good, and balanced. The random part might require extra coding, as mixes don't normally work with random results. If so, I'd suggest an alternative that the mix produces an Enrichment Stone.
  7. "All the official safety system in the world will never completely cover a simple typo. " That's the argument to never allow invasions, period. Mods make mistakes and put the wrong (or no) cap on critters that are supposed to be capped on a regular basis, we don't stop capped invasions over it. This is officializing the status quo, not changing anything. Many years of these places being used as AFK spots with no memorable "mistake" issues is more than enough testing to assume that any mistake would be that, a rare mistake, not the norm. Nobody's suggested "disciplining" anyone over a mistake. They should, of course, fix their mistake if they make one, but your response is just extremist reaction for the sake of being extremist. We don't stop suggestions solely because "something might go wrong" that would be the exception rather than the norm. This literally "puts some words" on places without actually changing anything because it is already the norm. I don't get why that's so hard of a concept to grasp.
  8. That's literally what I just said. Your DP Reading Room suggestion is actually MORE than what I said. "1) What is "not a small number"? I gave one per storage, 2 in rare cases like VotD where the safe one could be confused. And Isla Prima. There aren't that many storages for this to be more than a small number. " That is literally just inside storages and one nearby safe house (or a rare 2 where the safe one could be confused like VotD or Ida) for outside storages. I've chopped the suggestion down to the previous post just above yours, so anything else is already not being discussed. But you're starting to grasp the whole point... the overwhelming majority of places being suggested are ones that common sense has dictated not be invaded in the first place, there's even more than I suggested (like your DP reading room addition). The only real additions are like Zirak's storage wagon which I'll be opening in the next client update so it can't be a norm yet. (and yes, the sole purpose of that wagon getting an insides is for players at that storage to have a safe place to AFK, I took the time to make it for no other purpose.) This is literally just adding a "designated safe zone" tag to those places that are already treated like such by players.
  9. I also don't have the mod chat to play gang up games like is happening here, so I'm not responding to you Raz. "Oh, no, he just said invasions instead of dangerous invaders which he obviously was meaning so gang up and attack him over that instead of using a little sense and understand he's talking about safety for players". 1) What is "not a small number"? I gave one per storage, 2 in rare cases like VotD where the safe one could be confused. And Isla Prima. There aren't that many storages for this to be more than a small number. I just wrote to forget the rest, so I won't repeat it. 2) The areas would be marked "designated safe zone" or similar, getting the actual intent across. Assume from this point my wording was "invasions that are DANGEROUS" as that was the whole intent, you can drop safe critters wherever you want. Assume literally everything about this is player safety, and not "invisible rats" or any other safe drop that comes to mind. Assume this would literally not change much of anything from how things have been assumed by players to be for many years now (otherwise no one would bother taking the time to go into the house at Naralik to AFK instead of just sit at outdoor storage for example), it's just making the status quo official.
  10. So your true complaint is there will be a small number of places you can't toss numbers after #invasion at? Yes, I wasn't thinking about "invisible rats". Nor was I thinking of Targets, or Nenos, or Badas, or Invdrags, or Shy Rats. Or Unicorns. Or anything "capped at 1". My whole point was safety. All I got in return was complaints that you couldn't throw invaders in where people have for years now expected to be safe. So yes, I question the motives of these responses.
  11. This must be a gossipy banter in mod chat, since you're all coming here on the warpath with the exact same commentary. Invisible rats, dragons capped at 1.... What part of the word "safe" is not being understood? Drop an entire damn bucket of invisible rats on the latest newbie on IP, I don't care. We're talking safety here, and it keeps going off into rewording things that I did NOT say, and things like this that don't qualify as dangerous to an AFKer. But let's simplify this, since that was actually just a side comment anyway, not the initial purpose of the post. I should have known the "oh no it's limiting a moderator" comment would raise hell. So take that damn comment off. Let's stick to solely having the safe locations. At or near storages. And let's pretend the word "safe" is actually a common word that's easily understood. Let's pretend I'm talking about the places that are already being used as AFK spots by people, and have been for years, like the Naralik storage house, and moderators use common sense and don't invade those. And by invade those, I mean in a dangerous manner. This would LITERALLY not change a single damn thing on the part of moderators unless they're assholes invading rooms that are regularly AFKed in, but would show good will towards players by having them marked instead of having to guess. (And the whole point of suggestions is change, so not sure what your point was there.)
  12. "For all other small buildings in general like random houses" Those are my exact words. All the random small houses like in Melinis or Ida city or such that are only possibly invaded via hidden invasion. Nobody said anything about huge damn caves that are regularly invaded and as such no one should feel safe in. I'm not going to respond to people rewording what I wrote. I didn't take the time to make the damn mod invasions map just to restrict it. These are common sense suggestions based on how the overwhelming majority of things are already done, just "making it official" so players won't have to question it. What is so difficult to grasp? This will change almost nothing, just making the current norm official.
  13. One location per storage, be it the inside storage or a location near the outside storage. And Isla Prima. And the building in the Ida cemetary that was moved there for this specific purpose in the first place. I'm not understanding what the "restrictive" part is. The added comment about checking before doing a hidden invasion? (Like peeking in the tree house next to Redeemer to ensure Aisy's not AFK there before dropping a bricker in there?) I'll need the restrictive part explained, since hidden invasions are rare, and checking first aids in ensuring you're dropping critters in the right place.
  14. Well... thanks for the perfect example of the reason this is needed? I couldn't have given a better reason myself. Radu got pissed years ago when Acelon did indoor storage invasions. They've been deemed safe ever since. P.S. Invis rats are safe by default, not sure why you brought them up. If you check houses and such before you invade them, you also completely eliminate accidental invading the wrong place. "Wait, the invaders didn't appear here, I fucked up... I can #tp to where I just invaded and kill off my mistake." I do question the motives of those who can't deem a handful of places in the game as safe for people. Forcing your final sentence is by default saying mods have questionable motives. If you're not setting out to attack AFK players, then having some designated safe zones is hardly something to complain about, right? Let's answer the real question here: How exactly is it harming you to have a handful of officially-designated safe places to AFK that people have already been using for that purpose for years, without you actually trying to attack AFKers?