Ban breaking the Heart Fire

[serVar161]

Good comment

Bashing unwanted fires is part of security in your area. (or let scouts just lurk, what could go wrong)

I wasn't thinking about scouts. Option: Heartfire can only be placed on a claim.

Horrid idea of random "free cell" replacement of fire. (log off line with a charter stone up, now there are 100 fires that can't be broken)

I don't understand who can't broken heartfires.

If your hearth is bashed you are in an unsafe area, or unaware of how to protect your self/base. If this is the case, try pressing C -> C -> H -> S.

Clarification needed. The only thing I understand is that if this happened, then you're a "fir-tree cap"—a newbie?

We don't need more mechanics for capture, surrender, prisons, camps, or another form of serfdom ~ inb4 locked in a gateless palli.

I've been thinking about this. Under what circumstances could this happen?
They wouldn't be able to do that in your territory. Either your own people have taken a dislike to you for some reason. Or you're a prisoner.
Either way—that's how it works in real life. Prisoners are walled up, and the doors of unwanted residents' houses are propped open from the outside and set on fire.

- You could always die of hunger. It'll take a long time, yes, but it's realistic.
- You could try to negotiate with those who walled you up.
- Another option is to call for help to free you.

This will increase social and in-game interactions between players.

May I suggest: playing the game, building a village, go try raiding another base, found a realm. Do some dungeons, fight a mammoth, whale, and/or troll.

That's what I do and plan to do.
And that's why this section exists—so that people with different gaming experiences, mindsets, and playing styles can share their ideas, and others can correct, comment, and express their opinions if necessary.

[serVar161]

I agree with this guy.
Much better options than your slave fantasies.

Of course there are. But the same can be said about everything suggested. Why besiege anyone or even hunt them? Plant your own crops, build a base. No need for PvP or even PvE – let's live in peace.

And these aren't my fantasies. When proposing an idea, I try to consider the interests of other players as well. Let's divide them into "good" and "bad."

The good players get the opportunity to survive, play the role of liberator, and various other roles.

The bad players get the opportunity to live out their fantasies of slave villages.

Both "factions" get various gameplay and social interactions:
- like capturing prisoners with possible exchanges or ransoms.
- Prison for roleplaying, or, for example, meeting a suspicious player, escorting them to prison to find out who they are and what they're doing there.
- a player jumps in and sees a lone Hermit beautifully setting up his base and thinks, "I want an architect like that for myself." If a peaceful agreement can't be reached, you can give him a choice: captivity or death. Yes, he'll lose some freedom, but he'll be protected and play together. Is that good or bad?
- The above point implies the ability to organize villages by force.
- I caught up with the player, beat him, and gave him a choice: "death or come learn to fight with me. When you manage to knock me down, you'll gain your freedom". Is that good or bad?

Many interactions will appear, but this requires a retention mechanism. Otherwise, the player will simply break their Hearthstone and disappear.

[r0ck4ev3r]

Bashing unwanted fires is part of security in your area. (or let scouts just lurk, what could go wrong)

I wasn't thinking about scouts. Option: Heartfire can only be placed on a claim.

You are only digging the hole deeper, this is an even worse idea. This whole thread is truning into yet again another var=shitpost

[linkfanpc]

The good players get the opportunity to survive, play the role of liberator, and various other roles.

again, i don't want to be rude but your idea has 0 thought put into it. no griefer wants a "slave" to have any access to their village, they'll only enslave people because under your proposed mechanics you can easily get someone stuck with absolutely no ability to escape, which is many times worse than death because they can never reincarnate this character now, meaning they have to start completely over losing their character as well as their claim if they lived alone with no friends to build wilderness beacons within their walls.

and don't try to suggest some ability to kill yourself to avoid getting stuck permanently, because that voids all your proposed mechanics because again, nobody would ever use any of them for any reason other than to grief people harder than they already can, and so people will either entirely ignore them and just kill the victim in the first place or, failing to kill them, use the mechanics to force them to kill themselves, thereby making your entire suggestion just a way to permakill anybody.

[serVar161]

I wasn't thinking about scouts. Option: Heartfire can only be placed on a claim.

You are only digging the hole deeper, this is an even worse idea. This whole thread is truning into yet again another var=shitpost

Why is this a bad idea? Will it be difficult at the beginning of the game?

[serVar161]

The good players get the opportunity to survive, play the role of liberator, and various other roles.

again, i don't want to be rude but your idea has 0 thought put into it. no griefer wants a "slave" to have any access to their village, they'll only enslave people because under your proposed mechanics you can easily get someone stuck with absolutely no ability to escape, which is many times worse than death because they can never reincarnate this character now, meaning they have to start completely over losing their character as well as their claim if they lived alone with no friends to build wilderness beacons within their walls.

and don't try to suggest some ability to kill yourself to avoid getting stuck permanently, because that voids all your proposed mechanics because again, nobody would ever use any of them for any reason other than to grief people harder than they already can, and so people will either entirely ignore them and just kill the victim in the first place or, failing to kill them, use the mechanics to force them to kill themselves, thereby making your entire suggestion just a way to permakill anybody.

You're misunderstanding this process and missing an important part. This sentence adds options, but doesn't remove existing ones.
(With the exception of breaking the Hearth fire and appearing in a random location).

A battle has occurred. A winner has been determined. The winner can offer the loser the opportunity to surrender. Or the loser can surrender. But this is only possible with the consent of both parties.
If the winner refuses to take you prisoner, or the loser refuses to surrender, continue where you left off.

But they might also agree. They might not place you in a gateless palisade. They might allow you into a part of the village built specifically for this purpose, not their own. They might eventually become friends. There are many possible outcomes, including bad ones.

But you can't be forced to surrender unless you agree. It's your choice. If you think surrendering will only make things worse - don't give up.
If you arrive at the winner's base and see that the conditions there don't suit you, don't build a hearth fire. To be locked in a gateless palisade, you must build a hearth fire.

Permanent death if he has no friends to build a wilderness beacon. Well, that's what happens in life to loners. It's also your choice.
But even if he has no friends, he usually has an alt. Just an alt, or alt who holds the keys.

And to get inside even without the keys, there was a suggestion to pick the palisade gate. Pay attention to the last paragraph.
As I said, it's part of a larger sentence, and although each one stands on its own, together they are more effective.

[Regulus2424]

I'm trying this new bit where I don't read the OP but only everyone's replies, it's much less painful and way more hilarious. So far it sounds like he wants to add slavery and forced conscription? Achieved with some hf manipulation? Art imitates life, or something.

[Halbertz]

I'm trying this new bit where I don't read the OP but only everyone's replies, it's much less painful and way more hilarious.

I thought I'm the only one who is doing this. Feels good so far.

[ZamAlex]

Playing imaginary Haven at your head is much more fun than a real one. So many cool ideas can be implemented!

[serVar161]

Playing imaginary Haven at your head is much more fun than a real one. So many cool ideas can be implemented!

I don't play in the imaginary Haven. I'm interested in playing the real one. But it's much more interesting when there are more options.
As I already said, Haven has a lot of options in some areas, and few in others, particularly social interactions. This is one way to add them.