Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - user1805

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
Bug reports / [Fixed - persists in 3.63] Silver Sacrifice in Quest
« on: January 03, 2021, 06:40:33 PM »
What I saw was that the sacrifice in the Spirit of the Forest- Quest appears as broken:

After using one of two silver rings for that quest at the ant nest, the two silver rings stack again in the inventory afterwards. That looks to me that the used ring didnt loose value and  the adventurer effectively did not sacrifice anything. That cant really be intended?

Solved'n'fixed bug reports / Re: [3.63] Ghost-Spruces in the forest
« on: October 11, 2020, 04:09:08 PM »
PSR is available but will not upload because of the tiny restriction for uploads. The part of the msg log is attached.

Off-topic / Re: Bushcraft youtubers
« on: September 14, 2020, 11:23:11 PM »
Amazing videos by koteko and Brygun. Let me add some aspects:

Fresh water

As I see there was enough rain. If not, in this vidoe the person knows what to do to get fresh water:

Also very interesting is, that small wounds can turn into something, what would have been dangerous without a modern medical kit.
Also in another report I saw - it was an expedition of some scientists in the Amazonas related region, when they got infections unde the toe nails walking uncovered.
Related to the game some little birch bark shoes can have a function. We also see that a pot does not necessarily need to be from iron.

Birch tar

Something else:

This was used to build stone weapons but also later i.e. to mount the arrowhead to the shaft.

War archery

This video of Lars Andersen shows what war archery looked like and how fast it could be used:

Solved'n'fixed bug reports / Re: [3.63] Ghost-Spruces in the forest
« on: September 08, 2020, 01:42:54 PM »
You did find a real bug though, the message should be that it hits a spruce sapling, and the dog should eat it.

Still not, as there was no spruce sapling on that tile.

(I refer to my game of course, let me say that to aviod more mess. Never would try to suppose someting to your game. Thats other people style).

Didnt I tell and also confirm again that there was only a dog on that tile.

Maybe two years of play this game again is not as much as others did but by far enough to know how to use the F3 function.

There was only dog. And after taking the screenshot I doublechecked it and triple checked it by also stepping on that tile again and check again whats there > A dog and nothing but a dog.

That was already clear after my 2nd post, only it was not believed obviously. And still im telling the same thing again. Dont you think that can make me tired and asking myself >why dont they believe that. Is it possible that I make such a stupid impression< I dont think so.

Its really hard to convince here someone. And telling clear things again and again slowly makes me tired.

Solved'n'fixed bug reports / Re: [3.63] Ghost-Spruces in the forest
« on: September 08, 2020, 12:46:42 PM »
As also the last time I saw your comment, then also here you have no argument, and if you have a list you offerd, why dont you show it.

Thats when I recognize all of your meaning is just helpless polemic that should cover you lack of arguments.

Solved'n'fixed bug reports / Re: [3.63] Ghost-Spruces in the forest
« on: September 08, 2020, 10:27:52 AM »
"The point is that it doesn't matter where the dog is because you MISSED when you threw it. Next to the mentioned spruce is where it actually landed."

No dear, (1) you cannot miss to feed a dog from one tile away. Didnt you ever recognize that. (2) Still you did not recognize that there is no spruce near any of the dogs. (3) Then you mention that there are several dogs and you cannot know which one is the target? Be seriouis. (4) You suppose you cant see a spruce sapling behind a pine tree. Check it out, You can. The number of your posts tells me that you know that all exactly but you only do not like that there is that bug and then you find a lot of provocating accuses.

" [...] there’s no offense, but hostility can be sensed on another post..."

Beginning from here I'll give you a few examples what is hostility in some other posts, even if it is not possible to mention all of the newest ones:
supposing I did not watch out or Im fooling around. Similar to this thread. There are also some people who just have to comment everything wether they have an idea of it or not what alone is an annoyment.
Member answers here only to accuse me I was not honoring his idol as he would do. Sorry but your little buddhas are not automatically my little buddhas. But he was obviouly completely uninterested in the actual topic as he does not contribute anything but only wants to piss me off.
Same here.
Same here, AND aditionally justifies tribes from hundreds of years ago instead of contributing to the topic, what brings up new quarrels with another member in the thread as you can easily see.
Then here member Dark-Art and Erkka starting to speculate wildest style in several long posts about what I was thinking, feeling, intending. Their speculation is unhonorable and unpolite and by 98% nonsens. If they want know what I'm thinking why dont they ask me. Shame on you.

Further in that thread i would have expected that Erkka just clearly apologizes to the other member that Dark-Art justfied some tribes from long ago. Instead of of discussing and try to defend the position of Dark-Art, a short and clear apologize would have been appropriate.

The list would be just endless, typical style is that hordes of "honorary" and less honorary members attack someone like a wolf pack if he does not like to give up his position and the admin instead of balancing put oil in the fire. One example is the following, maybe not the best one but good enough and in a typical style:

And know what: When v3.63 was out I thought let me take the payment version as the idea of that game is good and there are some new things, let me support it. Thats when I find that the version is not tested well and fully buggy. Really crappy work. I dont only have to bear naughty forum members, pay the version, see that my proposals and topics are just pissed off BUT Im also the cheapest game tester the world ever has seen. From here I begin to understand why Im counted as fooling around.

Solved'n'fixed bug reports / Re: [3.63] Ghost-Spruces in the forest
« on: September 07, 2020, 08:18:50 PM »
There is nothiong on that tile but a dog, I checked it several times, and if you have looked well at the picture you would also have seen it. I really like people who just try to slap off something by a half-baked assertion or speculation.

Who can read has a clear advantage :)

Normally I  dont quote myself, but foryou I make an exception ;)

Solved'n'fixed bug reports / Re: [3.63] Ghost-Spruces in the forest
« on: September 07, 2020, 07:59:58 PM »
My pleasure to explain it to you in a different way JP-Finn: How many spruce do you see on the picture?

Solved'n'fixed bug reports / Re: [3.63] Ghost-Spruces in the forest
« on: September 07, 2020, 05:58:24 PM »
There is nothiong on that tile but a dog, I checked it several times, and if you have looked well at the picture you would also have seen it. I really like people who just try to slap off something by a half-baked assertion or speculation.

Solved'n'fixed bug reports / [3.63] Ghost-Spruces in the forest
« on: September 06, 2020, 09:07:11 PM »
as seen in the pic: willow grouse cut hits a spruce where is a dog.

Velocity depends mainly on draw weight.

For a higher draw weight the archer needs to be stronger (and more experienced).

That a longer bow increases accuracy but makes the action/agility slightly slower was mentioned, as some other things and what I read was correct.

When the "Hunting Bow" is called like that, it may be possible that it does not have a high draw weight as a war bow, as animals wear no armor. Lower I expect the handling to be slightly faster als for a strong guy.

This is when I expect that a hunting bow is easier to handle for an adventurer with lower strength.

Maybe it is set in the game as the programmer is a bow freak, even if draw weight not visible for the player in action.
This description I count as quite nice:

This is when a long bow could have 50 pounds draw weight and also 100 pounds draw weight. But how it is implemented in the game I dont know.

Off-topic / Re: Who were "Njerpez" ?
« on: August 31, 2020, 08:23:30 PM »
Since user1805 has not been commenting after this clarification was made, I'm not sure if the original topic is settled, but I hope so =) [...] So, yes, earlier I was also thinking if I should ask Dark Art for more clarification on mentioning the Moscow Russia - I was waiting for user1805 to comment, but that didn't happen.

The later discussion is somehow at the border of our off-topic-topic. But I also cant say its out of that topic. So should I come and say 'What are you doing there'. That would be unapproriate. Its also an emotional discussion (not seldom in forum). When I cant see that one of them is clearly wrong, what should be my statement? Thats when I thought - let them clarfy their thing first - as its not (really) mine. My topic was in the headline and it means to find out about how the Njerp can be explained by historical facts.

The other members aspect was to justify real tribes or not.

To calm down quarreling members as a referee is a moderators job. I think it was ok for me not to mix in there.  What I can say is - Yes, I also think that DarkArt didnt get the content of the older posts clearly in more than one way.

Historical things, all what I saw in older threads, was always an important realistic core of the game, even as nature, hunting, fighting, trading. All are heading to reality. And if the game is called 'Unreal World' it does not contradict it, as every scenario is unreal in some way and only tells what could have happened but didnt. That differs from something fictional in the strict sense, as we also would not call a business-scenario or a science scenario as fiction. To tell sometning personal is, when the game is close to a scenario - this makes the game interesting to me and shows me aspects of nature (i.e.) what fiction or fantasy can not. It expands to the off-topic, when also other members show interesting videos of survival in the wildernes (i.e.) inspired by the game.

I didnt claim the Njerp have to try to reach out for more than a south-eastern region.

Thats when I didnt start the topic in the proposal but in the off-topic.

Even if its easy to be seen in some of my old posts, that I would count a little more mess (i.e. conflicts, other plants and recipes, more nasty citizens or robbers who would capture villages) as more interesting.

Actually my last statement was that there generally could be two other possibilities than Nowgorod to explain Njerps. I thought it was interesting to invetigate here. But obviouisly it was not interesting enough and people got their own aspects of the topic.

Off-topic / Re: Who were "Njerpez" ?
« on: August 24, 2020, 12:13:56 PM »
Let me come back to this: "Now it's been also verified that Njerpez raiders don't ever try to reach regions of western and northern cultures"

Verfied would mean proven. And as the discussion (not only in this thread) refers to history as a main base of the game, to me it looked like someone found a historical proof. From here I thought 'What a hoax, who proofed that?'.

If you say about my post # 6 that you dont really understand the arguments, thats obvious because they are actually not arguments but an ironic summary of what was posted before. Thought that was clear to be seen. That can happen when I have the impression that I get bamboozled. But only the grin smiley in addition I counted as a double check to prevent from misunderstanding that post.

As you use a present tense in the change log (what I just overlooked before) , possibly you mean it is >set< (instead of verified) in the current game scenario. This is when >verified< now only looks like an irritating word usage here. This is what I understand now after your explanation as you also mention that historical validation is fragmentary.

I dont count Wikipedia as so bad, as thousands look at i each day and mistakes would be found. Its maybe a little speculation but as you see the Novgorod map it looks quite like expansion and they probably would have tried to reach out. Even they reached the northern regions.

As you search from Russian history intead of Finnland history, it shows up easily.

If you draw the the game map maybe 40 degrees clockwise you also see that the raiders from the east actually are coming more from the south. Thats when someone looks for raiders from the east (historically) he will not find them.

Novgorod is one possibilty but according to the current scenario setup, I would count it as the second best because the game scenario shows no possibilty of success of the invaders, but in history it was there. If I include besides conditions I would count it only as the 3rd best, what is maybe a little surprising. Swedes are not necessary to explain traders. Even in stone age there were trading routes.

What I clearly dont like is someone coming in the 'I-am-style'. Sure, the adminitrator can implement little green guys coming from space to switch off the continent if the spirit of the water is angered. Or even slap off comments in the 'I-am-style'. But that means nothing and not everyone will count you as 'something else'. There is no reason to behave from upside to down as long there is nothing abusive, discriminating, ... You should know it yourself.

Other thing is: In the game desription on the public site the game is called "low-fantsy". In the discussion the historical reference is held high. "High-historical-low-fantasy" would that be coorect? I made no notes about it but repeatingly in the discussion I saw, when someone brings an argument what historically does not (really) fit, history will slap it off. But when someone then comes with history argumentation you easily say (besides others) that its just fantasy. This looks like switching the comfortable side any time you like. You find that thing in the 'Hare and the Hedghog' story where the actually faster one looks like slow.

Every scenario is somehow restricted and arranged. Thats  also the case in the game. But that is not yet fantasy in my opinion. Even the quest stories of those spirits are something what exists in many variations in the mind of people. From that point of view I would not count it as 'Fantasy' in the strict sense. Fantasy for me would begin as dwarves and elves running around interacting. Also those Njerps are not fantasy not even really fictional as we found examples for them in area and other circumstances.

Off-topic / Re: Who were "Njerpez" ?
« on: August 23, 2020, 10:10:41 PM »
Refute what? You got a direct answer from the game's own co-designer on their origins! What's left to speculate about? I don't understand.

Who told you you that a game-programmer is also a Historian M.A.?

The question is: "Was there a tribe in ironage that fits to the scenario of the game" (The name of the tribe obviously cannot be 'Njerpez' as Galgana already clearly mentioned). But what was the real name of the tribe that come in focus and around what year was it?

If someone is able to program in C is completely uninteresting for that question.
Do you understand it now BlankPaper?

Off-topic / Re: Who were "Njerpez" ?
« on: August 23, 2020, 02:35:04 PM »
No one up to refute my statement?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5