A Qualitative Philosophy & Stat Decay

[Duderock]

You misunderstood the direction of which the burden would be put upon. Yes, it would inconvenience some of the players who prefer to be alone, but I was actually meaning a good part of the burden would also on the people setting this up. You also don't give an example of how this would work, it would clear the air some if you could put it in some form of illustration that would allow us to see your proposal in action.
[The expectations and assumptions of the player base is admirable, but naive.

It's difficult to illustrate because I'm just proposing a philosophy, not any specific mechanics. But to give an example of how it can possibly work, imagine yourself living off some carrots that you find regularly up north from where you live. Then slowly the supply starts to run out because of other players, so you are forced to look south where you find plentiful cabbages which give a similar benefit. This is how I imagine how things would be like at the most basic level, so I can't imagine it being too difficult unless you start desiring to have even more valuable resources.

However, that carrot and cabbage cycle won't leave much room for progression. A player will yearn for more, so they might look east to find another player who can supply them with pumpkins, then look west for melons etc... As you can see, the more links with people you make, the more you will possess, and that in itself would be the form of character progression, instead of stat (grinding) progression like we have now.

I don't agree with the prospect of pushing people into an exchange based on necessity, the blood of most on this planet lack the... color variety to understand such a relationships.(I think this would be formulated as + = ?)
Now I do agree with the aspect that death shouldn't be who grinds more, this is a very broken component. Which is why I came up with a limiter which I went to great lengths explaining in this topic;

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=35911&start=10

No one will be forced to interact to survive. But my proposal would mean everyone has an indirect effect on each others environment. A player will only need to cooperate if they wish to develop their character with things like possessions, prestige and titles. In fact, it happens right now with things like villages that allow players to develop their stats at a faster rate when working together. My proposal would act as a natural limiter in of itself because you need to interact with more people to progress(not survive).

Sure there might still be trolls, but the extent of the damage they can bring would be decided by the kind of systems that are put in place, not the philosophy(or way of thinking) itself.

Again, this is not what I was meaning in full. The part about it being implemented was more toward the dev's being able to make such a system. Also, when I said 'the one who can manipulate the most' I was meaning a person manipulating more people, not the system you mentioned. Like telling people they have to do something because of some detached reasoning, makes me think of the church back in the time period this games supposed to take place... there was a reason those were called the dark ages.
One of the reasons I still can't really endorse this system is it sounds like it does the same thing, giving power to the few, only makes it more confusing. In this setting anyone can be a danger, where as in the current setting I know the intentions of that guy with the B12.

The person manipulating people won't be using detached reasoning at all. Think of it as less like religion and more like capitalism. Capitalists offer customers higher quality at lower prices, anyone can see the reasoning in that and will naturally cooperate with the seller.
But yes, power will be given to the few, but it will be so difficult to maintain that you get a case where its distributed fairly based on each players experience(not just time spent) or where the people who have a lot of it very much deserve it, like a champion chess player.

As for knowing the intentions of the other players, I don't see it as much of a bad thing. I think, it might be quite fun having to keep vigilant with those you work with, but its not like generally friendly communities can't exist like they do now. Besides if the system is well balanced, most players you interact with will find they have more to lose by killing you than if they work with you. Killing will still be a rarity.

Now I like the idea of players having impact on the environment, even indirectly. But I feel I must stand in contravention with 'Needing' to interact to progress. Development should be the work of individual players who each have their own innovations and yes being able to share ideas would benefit people, but not through imposing them by force. This is how settlers work, thinking others are just savages without taking the chance to understand how they've lived.
I believe I've gone over this topic as well in the prior stating topic; each individual learning about objects in their environment and their belief's shaping how they can use them, then being able to share these ideas for others to learn. (Is anyone else thinking this might actually give parchment a use?)

At any rate, had some new ideas to contribute, even if this isn't the place they SHOULD be. If you wanna flush your idea out better, build up some formulas and bring them to the anvil & hammer. We can get the dents out and maybe smelt some of the extra pieces into a new form. See you there maybe.
(Sadly we got thrown outta the inn, so no more free mead. At least we have another place to set up shop, just a shame the tinkers make more of a din then us.)
Till next time.

I'll accept that this is not for everyone (though I would question the point of playing an MMO if you refuse to interact with others), but I honestly think people are imagining this as worse than it actually is. A great game that gives a good example of this philosophy is Europa Universalis. Its a grand strategy game where you aim to conquer the world(this is just one of them many goals though). While you can potentially conquer the world alone, its very difficult to do so. Therefore you are forced to make alliances with others to succeed. Everything feels natural and nothing feels forced, and genuinely friendly relationships can form even with powerful people that have no intention of killing you. This is the kind of dynamic that I wish to see in H&H.

Another good example in an MMO context is a browser game called eRepublik. The great thing about that is you see players taking lots of different roles and have a profound impact on the entire game if they push themselves to interact more than stay secluded.

I like your thread, and I only wish it came sooner before I decided to start this topic. That would have been extremely useful in formulating this idea.