Prelude: Happy New World!

[Undefined]

If you are a neighbour of mine and you are chopping down all the trees, taking all the rare stuff that is to be found in my vicinity, i should have the option to attack/raid and yes even murder you. Because you are my competition and if the only option for me is to talk and ask you kindly it will be very easy for you to decline my request.

In a resource gathering MMO there is no 'single player mode', you always commit PvP ( Player Versus Player, which as you can read doesnt always means combat ). You claim land(land that someone else maybe wants), you take 'items' from the world and use them to your own advantage, meaning it's harder for me to take advantage of those items because you already took them. In a open world sandbox one must have the option to retaliate.

You're entirely right, this is the point of open PvP, but unless I'm missing something there's absolutely no requirement for permadeath in this situation?
If your neighbour is being a dick, kill him, burn his home and get rid of him, that's completely valid and is the way I'd play myself. But, if after you've killed one of his characters that character became disabled for X amount of time it has no impact over him having a low skill alt.
You want rid of him, destroying his home does that, knock out his HF and have him spawn randomly. Your territory and resources are now safe and he has been punished, made homeless and has to start elsewhere, however he hasn't entirely lost everything and in X amount of time, which can be spent re-establishing a home, his character will have recovered and he can continue playing with it.
Explain to me why wiping out his character entirely and having him need to start as a sprucecap again is a better situation.

[Onep]

Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2015 topkek.

Long enough to play all of Hafen.

But he missed the circle jerk of masterwork 2d legacy
Literally every facet of which was unflawed and perfect

[KatoKhan]

I would love to be able to make it possible to build canals and moats and stuff, but just basically being able to "place water tiles" would be far too simplistic (and quite retarded, too, in 3D terrain). That being so, I can't really think of a system that would be good but also not require a fairly complex system of fluid mechanics, which I am a bit loathe to implement, for various reasons (not least performance).

Ability to dump dirt into water and making the tile shallow water would be a nice way to make bridges

I have similar feelings about this as well, but perhaps not quite as strong ones. If Jorb really wanted to, it would probably be possible for him to persuade me into doing something akin to that nature. Not entirely sure what I think about it.

My idea on this is to allow the terraforming via digging.

Deep water to shallow water = x stone and then x dirt dropped via boat and some special tool
shallow water to land = x dirt dropped
land to shallow water = digging a tile adjacent to a water tile
shallow water to deep water = digging x clay up then starts with stone

And if this could be done by anyone, then yes it could be used to grief someone by digging a canal from a nearby river to surround an area, but then again that person could also reverse the doings so again all is fair.

[Granger]

If you are a neighbour of mine and you are chopping down all the trees, taking all the rare stuff that is to be found in my vicinity, i should have the option to attack/raid and yes even murder you. Because you are my competition and if the only option for me is to talk and ask you kindly it will be very easy for you to decline my request.

In a resource gathering MMO there is no 'single player mode', you always commit PvP ( Player Versus Player, which as you can read doesnt always means combat ). You claim land(land that someone else maybe wants), you take 'items' from the world and use them to your own advantage, meaning it's harder for me to take advantage of those items because you already took them. In a open world sandbox one must have the option to retaliate.

You're entirely right, this is the point of open PvP, but unless I'm missing something there's absolutely no requirement for permadeath in this situation?
If your neighbour is being a dick, kill him, burn his home and get rid of him, that's completely valid and is the way I'd play myself. But, if after you've killed one of his characters that character became disabled for X amount of time it has no impact over him having a low skill alt.
You want rid of him, destroying his home does that, knock out his HF and have him spawn randomly. Your territory and resources are now safe and he has been punished, made homeless and has to start elsewhere, however he hasn't entirely lost everything and in X amount of time, which can be spent re-establishing a home, his character will have recovered and he can continue playing with it.
Explain to me why wiping out his character entirely and having him need to start as a sprucecap again is a better situation.

Exactly. But usually this question is sidesteped with comments like 'go play farmville if you suck in this'.

Also Avu has made good points with

I have to think that the fundamental reason the game isn't bigger lies in the minute-to-minute gameplay, rather than in implementational case details that only show up once under a blue moon. I've played every world ever, and only had a handful of hostile experiences with other players, of which even fewer resulted in my death.

I return to the relative staleness of the world. I think it's a problem that there isn't enough things going on in it for me to interact with, and be affected by, especially so after I get my walls up.

Why do you think the number one priority for everyone experienced is getting those walls up? Because of all those fun interactions with other people? It takes one bad interaction to fuck you over and 100 good ones won't matter. The risk increases when you live in a big town. You are both a target as a village and having so many others count on you increases your need to pvp by orders of magnitude. Yet by any sane cost analysis pvp is a bad deal, the only real rewards most often than not are imposing your will against the unwilling (some really get of on this), or removing a thorn (real problems never go away they are organized multiple bases etc...). So yeah why get involved in an unwinnable war that will simply fuck all your activities outside of town by the sheer risk of getting waylaid on a road.

And you brought up minute to minute gameplay and sure there's problems fuckton with that because you get off on tedium like it's very kinky porn. Take animals, why can't we fucking feed them pumpkins without ruining their q? Because pumpkins are out of phase with the rest of the game. Why should carrots be 10 times the quality of pumpkins, that imbalances every crafting product made out of them, it makes your work harder than it needs to be when some foods end up shit simply because their ingredients suck as default. Why don't you adjust the quality gain with the time crops take to grow? I'm not saying make carrots gain 1 point so you have to plant them every cooldown they could still be best crop for grinders and bots but give the longer taking plants a bonus on quality gain. And animals in general why can't they just grow in quality by grazing? People macro carrot fields because they have to not because they like to.

How about soil piles? This could have changed since I last played but anyway why 75 or whatever the size was? Why not 1000? If it's too much to move in one wheelbarrow then just let us load soil directly in carts and wagons so I don't have to do 300 wheelbarrow runs to dump the shit. It's things like these that drive people mad. What about mulberry leaves. What exactly have we achieved having to have an entire orchard of the things? Just more less efficient running arround. Wheelbarrows and stockpiles help but why not simply let us fucking stack the leaves in inventory. Make it take longer to harvest if you must have the balance but don't make me do 50 trips with your shitty inventory size that you think makes the game oh so great.

You want things to interact with how about spawning random limited resources through reginonal quests that multiple people can get. Say a great ancient apple tree has been spotted rumored to have very awesome apples unfortunately it's guarded by a den of bears. Everyone in say a supergrid would get notice of it and the location. Then people would go there and either work together or fight over it. You can do this for plants animals natural temporary resource nodes lots of shit. The results would create trade opportunities (as long as the rewards are really worth it). These quests could spawn randomly but not too often so all you do is not just hunt quests.

The ball is in your hands though.

[Myrgard]

One thought i had recently is to remove the sub tokens and replace them with Salem style coins (or something akin to them) this way instead of trading in super expensive sub tokens people would have something that can be broken down to buy lets say a hat or for example subscription for 3 days.

The idea is that this would remove the pay wall in ingame trade items=sub tokens. People could buy lets say a 100 coins instead of a sub token and spend them on multiple items allowing others to accumulate a larger number of coins through smaller trades.

[Kaios]

I have to think that the fundamental reason the game isn't bigger lies in the minute-to-minute gameplay, rather than in implementational case details that only show up once under a blue moon. I've played every world ever, and only had a handful of hostile experiences with other players, of which even fewer resulted in my death.

I return to the relative staleness of the world. I think it's a problem that there isn't enough things going on in it for me to interact with, and be affected by, especially so after I get my walls up.

What is the point of wiping and creating a new world? Do you have any plans for updates afterwards that are supposed to help retain the players that come around for the early game rush or are you just pissing in the wind?

Christ dude just look at how the player count dropped when you announced the wipe from a nice 200-250 peak to around 100 players and I guarantee none of those remaining players are farming or building houses or working on projects, any players still continuing to play at this point are eating all their shit so they can go kill people and die or they are looting someone else's shit so they can use/eat it and go kill people and die and the rest of the people who tapered off clearly have no interest in doing that. Why do you think that is? Re-evaluate your priorities because idk what exactly makes you think you can ask anyone for MORE money just because you added some shinies to the game like Kingdoms which still have no real purpose other than to be a glorified village claim, it's equivalent to Valhalla in that with or without nothing about the core game play changes and end-game is still just as uninteresting to a majority of players.

[chocolaterain]

One thought i had recently is to remove the sub tokens and replace them with Salem style coins (or something akin to them) this way instead of trading in super expensive sub tokens people would have something that can be broken down to buy lets say a hat or for example subscription for 3 days.

The idea is that this would remove the pay wall in ingame trade items=sub tokens. People could buy lets say a 100 coins instead of a sub token and spend them on multiple items allowing others to accumulate a larger number of coins through smaller trades.

I want to report you for suggesting this

[KatoKhan]

One must really wonder if anyone here arguing for 'it must be free' would work for (at times really ungrateful) others free of compensation themselves.

Would really like to see the outcome of hard pay2play (without freebies to exploit, give legitimate new users a free, but limited, demo world to testdrive the first hour or two but no access to the real thing), since should the ones who wouldn't pay or won't play without being able to alt away the consequences of their behaviour for free all really quit it would IMHO be a better world for the ones whos primary goal isn't to bathe in blood. I think would be a good step towards killing alting and throwaway characters, plus nuking accounts for botting would then have some teeth...

+11110000

Well said my friend. I have seen far too many games cater to the loudest ranters in the forums (which coincidently happen to be the voice of the fewest) and make huge changes that completely ruin the game.
Darkfall comes to mind the fastest. Started out pure awesomeness, then devs completely ruined it trying to cater to a few super loud obnoxious grief loving morons. And those changes made the majority of fun loving
normal people leave the game, only the derelicts remained which caused the game to fold because the derelicts generally are not the supporters.

I am a big fan of choices in everything. I would love to see a free to play version, but honestly speaking I do not think a pvp game, especially with perma death, can withstand f2p. If you really want consequences for actions then you have to have a sub. I agree that a $5 per month fee per account (one char only per acct) would be a good thing. Then throw in lots of cash shop items (small convenience and cosmetics only) and you should get funded enough that you can devote more time to making the game we play even better.

[HappyBuffalo]

One must really wonder if anyone here arguing for 'it must be free' would work for (at times really ungrateful) others free of compensation themselves.

Would really like to see the outcome of hard pay2play (without freebies to exploit, give legitimate new users a free, but limited, demo world to testdrive the first hour or two but no access to the real thing), since should the ones who wouldn't pay or won't play without being able to alt away the consequences of their behaviour for free all really quit it would IMHO be a better world for the ones whos primary goal isn't to bathe in blood. I think would be a good step towards killing alting and throwaway characters, plus nuking accounts for botting would then have some teeth...

+11110000

Well said my friend. I have seen far too many games cater to the loudest ranters in the forums (which coincidently happen to be the voice of the fewest) and make huge changes that completely ruin the game.
Darkfall comes to mind the fastest. Started out pure awesomeness, then devs completely ruined it trying to cater to a few super loud obnoxious grief loving morons. And those changes made the majority of fun loving
normal people leave the game, only the derelicts remained which caused the game to fold because the derelicts generally are not the supporters.

I am a big fan of choices in everything. I would love to see a free to play version, but honestly speaking I do not think a pvp game, especially with perma death, can withstand f2p. If you really want consequences for actions then you have to have a sub. I agree that a $5 per month fee per account (one char only per acct) would be a good thing. Then throw in lots of cash shop items (small convenience and cosmetics only) and you should get funded enough that you can devote more time to making the game we play even better.

Totally agreed. Players who pay or donate are usually the silent part of the forum. I don't think, though, that devs should change the donation system they introduced with world 10. It really sounds like a very useful for everybody who is paying for the games to open a wallet and still doesn't make too much impact for the free players to feel oppressed. Donation system in world 9 wasn't enough for some people to actually spend time paying - backpack size will fix this, but I do want to emphasize that it doesn't give advantage PvP-vise to paying players - only usability.

[strpk0]

Please - ban botting in W10; unless they pay %10000 more for subscription ...

Not possible. If it was, some MMO would have succeeded in doing so by now.

Ban it in the rules and nuke one whenever being in a bad mood (or just want to have some fun) would already go a long way of deterring users from it.

I meant to say, programatically banning botting (as the user seems to suggest) is outright impossible. Games like RuneScape have spent years attempting this, and it only functioned to ruin client performance and was eventually completely scrapped from the client code.
It's also not so obvious as to who is botting. Most bots aren't your cliché naked alt running around gathering things, instead they're people automating tasks they simply do not want to do. Stuff like farming, feeding animals, tending to mass amounts of silk, etc. Are you saying it would be fair to nuke someone's character because you so happened to spot them at the wrong time? Hell, how do you even know for sure they were botting when you saw them?

A lot of you seem to misunderstand the real purpose of botting, it is not simply done because people are lazy and don't want to play the game, it's mostly done because people don't want to do the same repetitive crap over and over, and instead want to spend their time exploring other aspects of the game (or watching a movie, sure). This isn't RuneScape, and unless you start seeing naked alts chopping your trees down and selling the wood for profit in the Grand Exchange, there's no real reason to freak out about bots as much as you seem to do. I think the devs took a step in the right direction when they automated farming, and I only wish they did the same for feeding animals and whatnot. Do so, and you have removed the one and only reason why I personally use bots, and many other people's. Fix all the other repetitive and labor-intensive chores in the game and maybe then it is justified to go for the 2-3 guys actually running harmfully big bot networks. I think if you're basically forced to do the same repetitive crap for 3-4 hours each day (I'm not even exaggerating) then it's only fair that you come up with a way to avoid it, and nuking users (at this point in time) is just forcing unfun game mechanics down people's throats.

Stop suggesting this.

No backseat moderating. You might dislike his opinion but are not to deny it to him.

Hey, atleast I didn't flex my shiny green name because I disagreed with their opinion.
My opinion is that lazy suggestions like "fix the game", "ban botting" are a waste of time, and as such I respond with equally lazy responses. No need to get defensive simply because you agree with him.
I am nothing but a dumb nobody on the internet, and if me saying "Stop suggesting this" is enough to censor or "moderate" someone's opinion, then that's just their fault for being silly.