What is the gameplay purpose, or necessity, of theft?

[shubla]

What will you do when somebody picks blueberries that you were going to take? We need a way to resolve conflicts.

[SnuggleSnail]

Hard to know for sure since I didn't read it, but I bet you could've summarized this drivel in 2 short paragraphs or less.

[VDZ]

scenario:
my neighbor lives twenty minimap grids south of me.
we both mine down to l6.
i prospect schrifterz on l7, thick ass node i hope!
i minehole down to it a week later, i realize it is gone, and there is a tunnel leading directly south to my neighbor's village.
option A: he has it secured in his wall, on the surface. my beloved gold! it is time to siege him. this is one reason siege exists.
option B: he has it sitting in ore stockpiles on a claim. my gold is within reach! time to just wheelbarrow it off.

I can understand the theoretical situation, but in practice how often does this happen without the stuff just getting alt-vaulted or moved to another base? Option A provides ample time to secure your valuables, whereas option B seems highly unlikely to me for something as valuable as gold (unless it's sufficiently late in the world that people don't really care about it anymore).

What will you do when somebody picks blueberries that you were going to take? We need a way to resolve conflicts.

You beat the shit out of them. If you do it in time (without theft that is before the blueberries are picked; with theft that is before the blueberries are secured and/or consumed) you get to keep the blueberries. Unconscious players can't pick blueberries; all the option of theft really changes is the timing when it's too late to prevent the initial action (but future actions are discouraged either way).

Hard to know for sure since I didn't read it, but I bet you could've summarized this drivel in 2 short paragraphs or less.

lol theft bad cuz it doesnt resolve conflicts just causes them lmao
if devs dnt want noob ganks they shouldnt be loot pinatas ; )

If you think that's a retarded take, read the actual post because it is indeed an absurd notion, but I have valid arguments for it. The point isn't to proclaim 'theft bad remove plox', it's to discuss the fundamental question of what impact the option to commit theft has on interaction between players. Aggression is discussed very often and has been nerfed in various ways to change its impact on player interaction (e.g. KO protection), but I feel theft is an overlooked part of the system, arguably leading to discouraging player interactions more often than aggression.

[DDDsDD999]

Because it'd make the game so mind-numbingly lame. Also claims and alt bodies shouldn't serve as shields that protect you from all danger.

Imagine tracking down someone that destroyed your friend's entire base, and you dunk him. The result would be you couldn't take the weapons/gear he used. His only punishment would be having to heal his wounds for a day. Only losing gear is already such a minor inconvenience, it doesn't need to be made any easier.

Natural resources used to be a way more common source of conflict (before everything could be spiraled). Imagine catching someone emptying your clay spot, and he doesn't even lose the clay. Just another day of wounds. He's definitely the one that won in that scenario.

[Sevenless]

scenario:
my neighbor lives twenty minimap grids south of me.
we both mine down to l6.
i prospect schrifterz on l7, thick ass node i hope!
i minehole down to it a week later, i realize it is gone, and there is a tunnel leading directly south to my neighbor's village.
option A: he has it secured in his wall, on the surface. my beloved gold! it is time to siege him. this is one reason siege exists.
option B: he has it sitting in ore stockpiles on a claim. my gold is within reach! time to just wheelbarrow it off.

I can understand the theoretical situation, but in practice how often does this happen without the stuff just getting alt-vaulted or moved to another base? Option A provides ample time to secure your valuables, whereas option B seems highly unlikely to me for something as valuable as gold (unless it's sufficiently late in the world that people don't really care about it anymore).

A good example would be leather early game. Or rowboats. Claims will exist, not necessarily walls. But the argument reinforces the general reason for pvp in the game in the first point. By making magical denial tools, some really edge case griefing starts to become the norm since there's no ingame mechanic to deal with it.

Denial "theft" that is meta is a bigger concern. The meta to ruin players if you're going to steal/attack them at all comes in part from "revenge". Discouraging revenge by destroying/looting them so thoroughly they quit or at least leave the region makes a lot of sense mechanically. Takes relatively little effort from the attacker, but helps ensure they have less problems in the area after their crime.

[Massa]

What is the gameplay purpose, or necessity, of meteors?

Hear me out while I write a second bible over an obtuse question. Listen, what do meteors add to the game? Meteorings, layers (once upon a time), some gildings? Forced content to masquerade the fact that the ONLY purpose of meteors is to start conflict, not resolve it! Since conflict is started and not resolved, this means it is automatically bad, because conflict is not good! I farm my field with a catapult and my trellises with a battering ram. That's what they're for right?

[VDZ]

Imagine tracking down someone that destroyed your friend's entire base, and you dunk him. The result would be you couldn't take the weapons/gear he used. His only punishment would be having to heal his wounds for a day. Only losing gear is already such a minor inconvenience, it doesn't need to be made any easier.

If you want equivalent revenge, destroying his base is still an option.

Natural resources used to be a way more common source of conflict (before everything could be spiraled). Imagine catching someone emptying your clay spot, and he doesn't even lose the clay. Just another day of wounds. He's definitely the one that won in that scenario.

This is a valid point, but I think the existing theft system is very limited in solving this problem. In the legacy example, you would still have been able to grab the chests of clay from his boat (unclaimed) and you would only be denied the clay in his inventory. In practice, though, most likely most of the 'stolen' clay had already been stashed away in a base that's too much of a hassle to siege over clay. Most such denied resources cannot be reclaimed without escalating the matter further, which does not require theft and which is sufficiently punishing that the player certainly hasn't 'won' even without theft.

A good example would be leather early game. Or rowboats. Claims will exist, not necessarily walls.

Do rowboats ever get stolen off claims? I guess leather is a valid example of something that does get stolen...but that gets stolen primarily because in the early game people cannot have walls yet (because you need leather for that...) and due to Rage being expensive people often cannot apply the existing conflict resolution mechanics. (Note that this, again, is typically a case of a more advanced player (the Theft skill isn't cheap) preying on weaker players.)

By making magical denial tools, some really edge case griefing starts to become the norm since there's no ingame mechanic to deal with it.

This is the point that confuses me and why I made this thread. Vandalism helps against construction-based griefing. Aggression helps against character-based griefing. But what kind of griefing does theft prevent?

Denial "theft" that is meta is a bigger concern. The meta to ruin players if you're going to steal/attack them at all comes in part from "revenge". Discouraging revenge by destroying/looting them so thoroughly they quit or at least leave the region makes a lot of sense mechanically. Takes relatively little effort from the attacker, but helps ensure they have less problems in the area after their crime.

It makes the impact of aggression more severe, yes, and that has a function because aggression has a function. But is theft required for that? As you point out, simply destroying the items would have the same effect. If, for example, getting KOed has a chance of damaging, degrading or destroying equipment, would that not fill the same role without incentivizing aggression outside of pre-existing conflict for personal gain?

What is the gameplay purpose, or necessity, of meteors?

Hear me out while I write a second bible over an obtuse question. Listen, what do meteors add to the game? Meteorings, layers (once upon a time), some gildings? Forced content to masquerade the fact that the ONLY purpose of meteors is to start conflict, not resolve it! Since conflict is started and not resolved, this means it is automatically bad, because conflict is not good! I farm my field with a catapult and my trellises with a battering ram. That's what they're for right?

The idea behind meteors is to encourage conflict between dedicated PvPers, as without meteors the game lacks incentive for them to fight each other and as such they turn to killing sprucecaps instead (without such incentives they avoid players on their own level; where is meteorites, where is siedge?). Moreover, they're opt-in PvP events where the only resources you risk losing are the ones you bring into the battle. This is in contrast with typical mugging and theft, which players cannot even opt-out of if they want to, and which primarily involves more advanced players harming weaker players.

[Massa]

please help jorb protect me from life aaaah

crime good

[Baba_Ji]

I love stealing people's art and variable material furniture, I wish it would have "Crafted by: Victim 123 on Day 700, Spring of Year 2" to add to the value of the looted piece.

Also the devs have also said conflict itself is good, you're overly obsessing over the last stream to give yourself any sort of argument.