quest giver protection

[Hrenli]

I wouldn't be able to find the exact stream without certain effort and I am not sure I care enough to bother.

I don't expect any sane person to do that. Thanks for the hint at least. Do you remember if there was an explanation why?

[SaltyCrate]

I don't expect any sane person to do that. Thanks for the hint at least. Do you remember if there was an explanation why?

No, I don't really remember. I am not sure one was given beyond saying what I already said.

[MagicManICT]

One day videos will be as easily searched as text... but we just got image search, so I think we can deal with it a few years.

I'll vouch for SaltyCrate's statement, though. jorb, at least, really has been hesitant to change his opinion on this matter. I might be wrong in my speculation, but I think there might be some system in place.

[NewCydathria]

Quest giver should be free spirits inhabiting the object (tree/stone), they should move to another nearby object should their vessel be destroyed or claimed.

But this does not solve the problem of capturing the quest givers. Tree/stone may be on someone else's claim, behind a palisade. I would like to avoid this.

In New Cydathria, I went to great personal effort to create public access to Nauker, a quest giver which the previous LS of New Cydathria had covered with the Village claim with the intent of preserving it and then inadvertently palied it in because he didn't realize other village properties which had to be palied were farther from the village center than the quest tree.

To this day I have no idea if anyone appreciated my efforts or took advantage of them, but I feel doing the right thing is in itself reward enough.

I think in the new world, villages which claim QGs for protection but make them accessible should be rewarded and villages which wall them off from public access or chop them down should face dire consequences (maybe a good excuse for testing the new siege mechanics?)

[Embers]

What you do with questgivers should be entirely up to you. Destroy them, wall them off. It will most probably bite you back but its your decision to make. Your decision is what matters. They don't need some godly protection and neither does the player.

[blinx]

What you do with questgivers should be entirely up to you. Destroy them, wall them off. It will most probably bite you back but its your decision to make. Your decision is what matters. They don't need some godly protection and neither does the player.

this

[2d0x]

What you do with questgivers should be entirely up to you. Destroy them, wall them off. It will most probably bite you back but its your decision to make. Your decision is what matters. They don't need some godly protection and neither does the player.

I agree, but finding a good solution would be nice. It does not matter whether this solution will be used in the future or will remain as it is.

[Embers]

The solution is : leave it for players to decide. If you're afraid a newbie could chop your tree then claim it. If you don't want any player activity nearby destroy it. Telling a player this particular stone is a quest giver won't actually mean shit, you just chopped a lot of potential quest giver spawns, so what of it. Ofc besides that being excessive handholding

[2d0x]

The solution is : leave it for players to decide...

This is an opinion, but not a solution. Read the title of the topic.

[blinx]

The solution is : leave it for players to decide...

This is an opinion, but not a solution. Read the title of the topic.

I don't think a "solution" is necessary, because as I see it there is no problem.
Think that was what the other dude was trying to say.

Personally, I leave a runestone next to the questgiver telling people it is a questgiver and asking them not to destroy it. If they destroy it anyway, oh well, that's life.