Talk:The TattleMaster

Writing Articles

See The TattleMaster/Writing for information on how to add articles, and some of the color codes used for the TattleMaster.

Revision Numbers

When a revision number is posted, does that mean ANY revision number up to the one posted has also been updated? In other words, are they done in order, so that if 4091 is posted here as updated, 4090 would also be updated on Dwilight?

Yes; when a revision number is noted as having been sent live, that means that all revisions up to and including that one have gone live to testing, with some exceptions. These exceptions largely have to do with the layout of the game; for instance, the family page is in a different directory (/) than the character status page (/stable/ or /testing/). The most commonly updated directory is /testing/. --Anaris 13:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, that answers my question exactly. Now - can the devs leave open the bugtracker issues until the revision is confirmed to be loaded?

In the case I'm thinking, revision 4090 contains layout fixes; revision 4091 is said to be loaded, so 4090 should be also...but it seems to be an exception (the fix is not working, for whatever reason). I don't know whether or not to open a new bug saying that the old closed cases didn't fix the problem or not... You see the dilemma? Perhaps a chart of some sort, where the revisions can actually be added? I'm not really sure what the solution is. --Justaguest 22:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

This is really the wrong place to be debating this issue. It has been discussed many times, and Tom and the dev members have always said this is impractical. If you really want to discuss this and suggest a way to change it, then please talk to one of the devs personally. Any discussion here on this talk page will almost certainly not be seen by the people who can do anything about it. --Indirik (talk), Editor (talk) 22:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a debate - it's a discussion about how you are reporting information on your page. And Anaris would seem to be the one who knows something about it, and he saw it here, so make of that what you will.

If there is a better place to contact different people about this, then please explain Who and How? I have no idea how to contact the "devs personally". Is there a page for that?

All I can report here is what rev level the test servers are at. (These are the servers that run Beluaterra and Dwilight.) Beyond that, there's really not much I can do to indicate what revs or bugs are fixed on what servers. Each bug should have a rev level at which it is fixed. That should be enough to let you now if the fix is live. Also, sorry if I seem snippy about it. This is just an issue that is raised quite often, and by some very annoying people. So you're tackling an issue with a lot of baggage, through no fault of your own.

Most of the developers read the Discussion List. I'd suggest trying there. I know that you'll reach at least three, if not more of them, by taking it to the list. Just ask to talk to a developer about it, and I'm sure that a couple of them will let you know who they are. --Indirik (talk), Editor (talk) 01:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Emmigration Messages

Err... that's been around for years? --Tom 23:24, 20 January 2008 (CET)

Well, that's what happens when a new island is being hyped: people start paying attention to what is written under the "emigrate" action and notice things they've never noticed before :). Medium 23:32, 20 January 2008 (CET)

I could swear the only thing I saw before was the ammount of players and average gold. I could swear! :O -Chénier 03:42, 21 January 2008 (CET)

SWI?

I always thought it'd be the SEI. SWI is, after all, the only donor-only island, SEI the island where all the troubles were, and closing the SEI would be the easiest way to bring hundred of war-hungry people onto Dwilight... -Chénier 17:16, 13 December 2007 (CET)

Perhaps Tom thought that since the SEI is an island full of war-hungry people, it's good that they are in fact on a war island like SEI, and since Sandalak is overruling SWI, there's no more war there. An easy choice, I think. Medium 21:09, 13 December 2007 (CET)

Non-sense. I would have thought that, exactly because SEI is filled with war-hungry people, he'd sink that one. So that, you know, Dwilight gets a good start and isn't prone to the EC's fate? A little push for a good start since there won't be any invasions to prevent stagnation. -Chénier 21:26, 13 December 2007 (CET)

Actually, SWI's war was going strong until this announcement. Ikalak was making continuing gains against a Sandalak whose two cities are separated from each other by quite a few rogue regions. I find it a fun place to play, but I also guess that freeing up donor characters for Dwilight may have a good influence upon it. Elenar 00:02, 14 December 2007 (CET)

I think there are a couple very good reasons for closing SWI:

• SWI was being used as a huge gold-farm by donators. I heard many times that people remarked on going to SWI to "reload their family gold" and other such things. (Yes, SEI was also used for this, but SWI is where the real money was.)
• Donators get other perks beside a special donor-only island. Like an extra character, and fancy Sir/Lady titles.
• If the only war island is a donor-only island, then non-donors don't get the option of having access to a war island. This means that donation actually gets you a tangible return for your money, some actual part of the game that you can only get by donating. The other benefits of donation are just game-wide recognition of donor status and getting more BattleMaster than non-donators, as opposed to a different Battlemaster. As far as I understand the donation program, that's not what donation is supposed to be.

Given all that, I'm not surprised that the SWI was chosen. Oh, and I don't think you'll find Dwilight locked into the EC's fate. EC ended up in political gridlock for a lot of reasons that just won't exist on Dwilight. Among them, the chief contributor is size. One superpower, or even two in close proximity, will not be able to lock up the entire island into gridlock like happened on EC. There is enough distance and separation on that monster island that one realm will have much less influence on overall island politics. --Indirik 15:32, 14 December 2007 (CET)

I think that if SWI is gonna replace DWI then Tom should get a free passage to DWI those who are on SWI.. also why is emigrating costing you gold on SWI now? It shouldnt cost as it is not voluntarily. I loved SWI. And btw you cant add gold to your family from war islands like SWI. Yes it is new.--M2rt 15:48, 16 December 2007 (CET)

I seriously resent the claim that the SWI was used solely for "donators" to hoard large amounts of gold for their families. In fact, the ability to send gold home to your family has actually been disabled on the SWI for a few months now. True, some may have done that in the past, but truthfully from what I can see, and from I can say for myself personally, the SWI was a fun island that was very evenly matched. Sandalak may have been bigger, but Ikalak was fighting back hard, and had even managed to split it down the middle with rogue regions before the announcement. It was probably one of my favourite islands, and I was very disappointed and annoyed by the announcement it was going to be closed. But, I suppose it is up to Tom, and I will just have to have my character deal with it :( --Bob 8:46pm 17 December 2007 (AEST)

You can resent anything you want, but you should resent what I actually said, and not what you think I said. What I did not say was that SWI used for the sole purpose of hoarding family gold. I imagine that the majority of the people on the island did not use the war islands to restock family gold. However, the fact remains that they were used for that purpose by a LOT of people. You may not be one of them. Yes, the war island gold-transfer ability was removed. (FYI - I wrote about it here within hours of it happening.) But the very fact that Tom was forced to do it only points out how extensive the problem was on *both* islands. (I personally believe it was much worse on SWI, based on comments I have heard from various donators who were on the island.) But in any case, I did not provide that list as a conclusive indictment of why the war islands in general should be closed. I provided it as my personal list of reasons why SWI may have been chosen to close over SEI. With the recent news of SEI closing also, it becomes a moot point. --Indirik 15:50, 17 December 2007 (CET)

Talk Archives

/December 17, 2007

South Island

It was a joke ;P

Ceorl 19:27, 1 April 2008 (CEST)

Well, of course it was. But there's a lot of people that read the wiki and not the DList. I had to help sucker them into it, too! :D --Indirik 21:28, 1 April 2008 (CEST)

That's too bad. I'd consider moving a character there. Even if the turns per day really wasn't every two hours but was more like every 6-8 hours or so. --Jdsiii 00:04, 2 April 2008 (CEST)

bounty pots

i think it was possible to put 10 and 9 into the monster/undead pots before.. I thought tom doubled it with the fix?

I can't put more than 10 right now, though indeed he did say he doubled it... I was pretty sure I could have 9 gold before, though. A pain that I have to click per 5 gold each shot and that it doesn't even bring me back to the bounty page, though. -Chénier 05:13, 18 November 2008 (CET)

The bug report just says "doubled", and I thought the limit used to be 5. I should have a lord character in a region tomorrow, and I can check the exact number of what it the old numbers were. I don't know when the doubling will actually be available on the stable servers. Maybe it was doubled to 20? If anyone knows for sure, then the article can be updated, or I can just change the wording to "doubled", and not bother with an exact number. --Indirik 05:28, 18 November 2008 (CET)

I just checked on Atamara, and I can put 10 gold in each pot. I would guess that means the new limit would be 20. --Indirik 14:55, 18 November 2008 (CET)

Bug 3993

I thought vote settings *should* be reset after elections? Wasn't this something that was to be implemented, to allow for more flexibility and less apathy from players?
Btw, I think this comment shouldn't come here, but I really dunno where to make it. :) - Ta|i 17:31, 1 December 2008 (CET)

I think what was changing was the voting options for how the position itself was selected, not the voting selections of individual nobles. IOW: Elected every 3 months, elected every month, appointed, etc., was all changing back to the defaults for the particular government type. --Indirik 18:02, 1 December 2008 (CET)

City/Region/Realm names

Err... That info is totally incorrect. I absolutely to not want all city and stronghold regions changed. That's total bulls*it, and I don't know where it comes from. The disambiguation should be used only when there is actual ambiguity, i.e. when a realm and a city have the same name. Only a few realms actually have that problem. Please update that info and remove the templates ASAP, otherwise we will have a lot of f*cked-up wiki. --Tom 20:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Cities/strongolds may not always have realms of the same name, but they will always have a duchy of the same name. Mind you, the duchy page could very well be inserted in the region page... -Chénier 01:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Since there are no "seperate" duchies, it makes no sense to make a seperate page. A duchy is always centered on a city or stronghold, and every city and stronghold always is its own duchy, so it makes absolutely no sense to me to seperate these out into different pages. That would be like splitting the Wikipedia page on Elvis up into one about the "human being" and one about "the famous musician". :-) --Tom 10:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess this should be revisited? Cities and Duchies are now separate. --egamma 18:24, 7 May 2012 (CEST)

Major revision

Good work, and Thanks a lot! That doesn't get said often enough.