Some critics

[Book]

Been thinking about all this some more.

I think the thing I was saying about diminishing returns based on number of trees cut would just wind up being kind of an annoying mechanic for new players to have to learn... just probably wouldn't work for people even if it solves a mechanical problem... so that wasn't a good idea.

Also, I think the stump thing was from back when we thought trees needed the stumps to regrow. That may not be the case at all, but it was popular consensus for a while which is why when people were trying to destroy other people's resources, they took the stumps too.

About the "making it take longer" thing... and in conjunction with what I think Mac was saying about wooden walls taking so little time to make compared to stone walls. Maybe this is a balance thing implemented now for when these become defensive structures? I mean the wooden wall would be easier to destroy, but also take less time to put up.

Would making trees take longer to cut down mess with that if that was the case? In the long run I mean. Especially if they do split the stone walls in half where they might then take 40 bricks, 10 mortar per section which they did mention at one point.

I've also been thinking that the expansion totems will help a lot, but I'm wondering if maybe they should be a large enough area (depending on tribe size for labor etc.) to accommodate a sizable forest / game reserve / jogging area, whatever.

Intent: I think that came up when trying to define griefing. I do still think intent matters when trying to define that Kind of like shooting someone is never particular good, but there's a difference between murder and self-defense... mens rea type stuff...

[MrDDT]

Also, I think the stump thing was from back when we thought trees needed the stumps to regrow. That may not be the case at all, but it was popular consensus for a while which is why when people were trying to destroy other people's resources, they took the stumps too.

About the "making it take longer" thing... and in conjunction with what I think Mac was saying about wooden walls taking so little time to make compared to stone walls. Maybe this is a balance thing implemented now for when these become defensive structures? I mean the wooden wall would be easier to destroy, but also take less time to put up.

Would making trees take longer to cut down mess with that if that was the case? In the long run I mean. Especially if they do split the stone walls in half where they might then take 40 bricks, 10 mortar per section which they did mention at one point.

Trees don't regrow from stumps, and I told people that. It didn't even make sense why they would regrow. Someone also tried to tell me this "how else are they going to have tree regrow from stumps" its guesses like that, with other wild ideas that got people upset because people were removing stumps.
To have it confirmed trees don't regrow from stumps even shows how badly people are about things when they dont know the facts.

Yes making it take longer to get logs would effect the use of making wooden walls and other things.
But my plan doesn't lower the amount of resources much if any per time spent. It just makes it so less trees are cut down in the process.

Right now it takes me 5s to cut down a tree. It yields about 1 to 26 logs. Avg is about 10 to 12. That means the time spend is 5s x 2 (5 more seconds to chop into logs). Total of 10s to get 10 logs. That's 1 log a second.
You could make it take 1min to get 60 logs from 1 tree. Without any change in the system based on time.
IMO I think there needs to be change, because if you made it 6x more logs per tree that would 6x the amount of tree resources in the game. I think once tree regrowth is on unless it takes more than a month for trees to regrow we will have MORE than enough.
Lets say with all the tree resources right now, you have say 100k logs (AKA 10k trees). That means it would only take 100k seconds to remove all the trees in the world. (Assuming it was no time spend moving around and resting).
That's less than 30hours of cutting for 100k logs. That's a LOT of resources in a short amount of time IMO. With regrowth, you can see this would be a ton of resources.

I would rather see faster regrowth, and less yield per tree than more yield per tree and slow regrowth.
I think seeing a tree pop up after 16 to 24 game days (that's 2 to 3 days real time) would be good, depending on how hard it were to plant trees. I think this should be best case. Worse case is it should take about 48 to 72 game days (6 to 9 days). When your skills and other factors are figured in.
Also you can allow age to factor into how much they yield. Maybe 1x age = 50%, 2xage = 75%, 3-15xage = 150%, 15+xage =100%
Something like that.

Basically right now, I believe there are few tree resources left (maybe 1000 trees), but that's because no regrowth is in. But once regrowth and spawn is on, you wont see a need to change the yield by much, and mostly just add time into how long it takes to cut, so clear cutting wont be a problem.

[China]

I think you missed the point of this, as I went over it about 100 times in IRC with you.
It takes hours to make a Chief tent. But it only takes people 5 seconds to destroy them. That's where the problem is, NOT permissions or not. I think time spent building should be a factor in how long it takes to destroy a building/wall.
This is very important for 2 reasons.
1)Griefers
2)Siege warfare.

I believe the destruction of buildings/walls will be a non-factor in the way you describe it now, when combat and seige warfare is implemented.

Let's take your #1 Griefers
As it stands now someone who is not a member of your tribe cannot destroy your buildings or walls etc. So 'griefers' are a non issue as of now, unless you unknowningly give a tribe member access to those abilities and he/she turns out to be a griefer. You takes your chances <shrug>.

#2 Seige warfare
My guess that when this is implemented into the game that the devs will take into consideration what, when, how & with what instruments things will be able to be destroyed by contestants, and it won't be anything that has to do with the way architecture & city building works at the moment.

I believe you are getting the cart before the horse and #2 (Seige warfare) doesn't have anything to do with the topic of cutting trees/paving junk piles/or accidently finding a tent not placed squarely in tribe territory and being able to destroy it.

[Dubanka]

alternatively to taking more 'time'...cutting trees should take more stam. Of course taking more stam will cost time (regen), but it also leaves the char more vulnerable...so the solo clear cut artist is at a much higher degree of risk (like 1/3 stam per tree).

it is good to see us having the same 'discussion' we had 2-3 months ago

TREES STUMPS GRIEFING OH MY!

[MrDDT]

I believe the destruction of buildings/walls will be a non-factor in the way you describe it now, when combat and seige warfare is implemented.

Let's take your #1 Griefers
As it stands now someone who is not a member of your tribe cannot destroy your buildings or walls etc. So 'griefers' are a non issue as of now, unless you unknowningly give a tribe member access to those abilities and he/she turns out to be a griefer. You takes your chances <shrug>.

#2 Seige warfare
My guess that when this is implemented into the game that the devs will take into consideration what, when, how & with what instruments things will be able to be destroyed by contestants, and it won't be anything that has to do with the way architecture & city building works at the moment.

I believe you are getting the cart before the horse and #2 (Seige warfare) doesn't have anything to do with the topic of cutting trees/paving junk piles/or accidently finding a tent not placed squarely in tribe territory and being able to destroy it.

This isnt just about Siege warfare. You are trying to think that's the only cause of it. Also why should people be limited to only building on tribe lands? What if someone wanted to build a free city without being owned by one tribe or another? Or an outpost that's not their tribe land. Or a way station?

The point is that something that takes hours to make, should be able to be removed in seconds. Its common sense.

The topic about the trees relates to this, because its about time spent should give rewards, just as it should give protections.

Ive I take hours to divert a river, it shouldnt take someone 5 seconds to revert it back to its old land. Terraforming is already this way. Its a great system. Why not apply it to other things?
Same goes for other resources like trees.

This does apply to siege warfare. I really hope they do take this into account when thinking of that system also. But it has more than 1 point here.

If you really want to get on topic, the topic has to do with how the game looks. So that's the main point of this topic.
I dont know about you but I would love to see old totem areas left standing, with 1/2 build walls and tents when I roam around because I believe that's how the world would look. People removing them in 5 seconds, will not allow this to happen when it takes hours and hours to build them.

I believe the destruction of buildings/walls will be a non-factor in the way you describe it now, when combat and seige warfare is implemented.

Let's take your #1 Griefers
As it stands now someone who is not a member of your tribe cannot destroy your buildings or walls etc. So 'griefers' are a non issue as of now, unless you unknowningly give a tribe member access to those abilities and he/she turns out to be a griefer. You takes your chances <shrug>.

#2 Seige warfare
My guess that when this is implemented into the game that the devs will take into consideration what, when, how & with what instruments things will be able to be destroyed by contestants, and it won't be anything that has to do with the way architecture & city building works at the moment.

I believe you are getting the cart before the horse and #2 (Seige warfare) doesn't have anything to do with the topic of cutting trees/paving junk piles/or accidently finding a tent not placed squarely in tribe territory and being able to destroy it.

This isnt just about Siege warfare. You are trying to think that's the only cause of it. Also why should people be limited to only building on tribe lands? What if someone wanted to build a free city without being owned by one tribe or another? Or an outpost that's not their tribe land. Or a way station?

The point is that something that takes hours to make, should be able to be removed in seconds. Its common sense.

The topic about the trees relates to this, because its about time spent should give rewards, just as it should give protections.

Ive I take hours to divert a river, it shouldnt take someone 5 seconds to revert it back to its old land. Terraforming is already this way. Its a great system. Why not apply it to other things?
Same goes for other resources like trees.

This does apply to siege warfare. I really hope they do take this into account when thinking of that system also. But it has more than 1 point here.

If you really want to get on topic, the topic has to do with how the game looks. So that's the main point of this topic.
I dont know about you but I would love to see old totem areas left standing, with 1/2 build walls and tents when I roam around because I believe that's how the world would look. People removing them in 5 seconds, will not allow this to happen when it takes hours and hours to build them.

alternatively to taking more 'time'...cutting trees should take more stam. Of course taking more stam will cost time (regen), but it also leaves the char more vulnerable...so the solo clear cut artist is at a much higher degree of risk (like 1/3 stam per tree).

it is good to see us having the same 'discussion' we had 2-3 months ago

TREES STUMPS GRIEFING OH MY!

Good point, and I agree. I did lay that out in the system I noted.

alternatively to taking more 'time'...cutting trees should take more stam. Of course taking more stam will cost time (regen), but it also leaves the char more vulnerable...so the solo clear cut artist is at a much higher degree of risk (like 1/3 stam per tree).

it is good to see us having the same 'discussion' we had 2-3 months ago

TREES STUMPS GRIEFING OH MY!

Good point, and I agree. I did lay that out in the system I noted.

[Mactavendish]

Actually DDT I did read it .. carefully and simply disagree with it.

[MrDDT]

Actually DDT I did read it .. carefully and simply disagree with it.

Ok.
Why. Which part? The whole thing?

[GuideDina]

I remember some friends of mine, many moons ago, removing a tree stump from their front yard. It took half a day to dig the damn thing out and they still couldnt get it out. Someone came up with the bright idea to tie a rope around it and haul it out using the car. It was one of those old tough cars with the towbar, steel bumpers etc. What they didnt take into account was how the tension on the rope was going to affect the results. The stump shot out of the ground quite nicely, but continued on and through the back window of the car. How I wish I had had a video cam that day, the looks on our faces were worthy of a picture

I quite like the suggestion of taking more time to cut down a tree and have the tree yielding more

[NorCalGooey]

Ok.
Why. Which part? The whole thing?

I disagree! But I don't know what I disagree with.

[findangle]

Quote below..

A lot of what you tend to say on the forums i agree with. i also agree that many times players want something thats bad for the game. I think it's usually that the players don't understand how other human beings are going to behave once those changes are made and not so much that they are selfish or just don't understand cause and effect..

What i find fascinating is that you are able to identify these behaviours and motivations in other players while at the same time are completely blind to them in yourself.

You should try to take into consideration that very often (not always) you seem to use "the greater good" to justify a "play to crush" playstyle.

I think your a really intelligent person and if you put your mind to it i think you can probably learn to seperate selfish use of game mechanics from altruistic community sheparding.

I'm not trying to say selfish use of game mechanics is bad. I'm saying it's important to be able to identify it within one's own behaviour. if you can own doing a bad thing then it's truely a judgement call. if you cannot own a destructive behaviour and say "i do this and it hurts other players and turns new players off the game" then your really only hurting yourself.

All that said DDT very obviously comes from the school of "play to crush" which is a VERY common playstyle in darkfall (i'm guessing you come from there?) and it's unfortunate because the playerbase in that game right now is going through a real "come to jesus" moment where they are starting to understand that their playstyle has driven away most of the other playstyles and has created a game they no longer want to play.


Conservation will be key in this game.. crafters will conserve resources.. players like ddt will have to learn to conserve players. as he himself said "its just how the game was made". i hope you learn that the devs have given us all the power to destroy the playerbase just like you destroyed the tree's. your actions have FAR further reaching consequences to the game than you realize.

I'd say ddt has a LOT in common with the people he criticizes for "not understanding what they want".

Im not exploiting anything, and you saying that just shows had bad you are. First off I didnt build a road ANYWHERE I didnt place a totem. Even if I could, its still not exploiting. Just because you think its a neg effect on players doesnt mean its exploiting. Building roads is there for a reason.
It would be like me saying "I like your spot you placed your town, you are exploiting it" makes no sense.

Im not always right, Ive been wrong before. I admit when Im wrong. You dont, and you are wrong often.

Players often tend to not know what they want. They think they know whats best for them but often its not. It would be like giving a child candy right before bed, or water right before bed. If they knew and understand the side effects (teeth falling out, and peeing the bed etc) then they wouldnt want that now would they?

People want things easy for them all the time, they dont understand it has side effects. If everyone had what they want, then there would be no trade, no econ.

Roads are NOT the only way to destroy junk piles. There are a few ways. I dont see your point here.
Roads are a great idea. The problem is how much junk piles are in the world, not the roads. If you want a junk pile protect it. Oh wait you cant because you dont want to place a totem over it, you want it everything your way.
Also you wont protect it with force because you are a PVEer gotcha. So who cares about trade and economy. Its all about what Jadzia wants. Sadly its not whats good for the game, nor the vision of a well thought out economy.

You say you cant protect the resources 24/7 well I have to show you thats 100% wrong. My resources are 100% protected 24/7, as I stated already up a few lines on how to do that. Just admit it you are wrong, and you just want it your way.


Im not even going to go into the warfare side of this WHOLE topic. Which let me tell you is great part of it too. Because I know it will fall on deaf ears as you have no idea how to PVP, nor what people that are interested in PVP want.

Added after 11 minutes:

True, but a lot of people are upset that safe totems can be put on junk and resources in the first place.

If John Doe grabs a knife and stabs me, I'm not going to blame the kitchen utensil company, I'm going to want the person who did the stabbing held accountable.

Ferraris are beautiful cars. Take it down a crowded sidewalk though and it becomes destructive. Would we blame ferrari? Or would we hold the driver accountable?

A gun "can" be a dangerous weapon. It can also be protection, recreation, food gathering tool... if Mr. Doe shoots someone, are we going to say he's innocent because the gun was made with the potential to do harm? Or would we hold the person who did the shooting accountable?

People in game get upset about "artificial, magical" protections. They accuse others of being carebears when those protections are suggested. That is the misdirection. The blame should be on those using the tools inappropriately. The people in control of their own actions should be the ones held accountable...

If you agree that the actions are inappropriate, then blaming NG is kind of a cop out. I do agree some things are a matter of incentive, but if people were a bit more capable of holding themselves accountable instead of needing babysitting rules to help them control themselves, there would be no problem.

imho.

I think you need to take this the step further.

DDT has the tools (as we all do) to deny resources to other players.. what he likely doesn't understand is that he is denying someone the enjoyment of the game.

We too have these tools. what DDT is doing is fair and balanced because we too have the tools to deny him enjoyment of the game. It's completely within the rules for us as a community to use these same tools to deny him enjoyment of the game in an attempt to remove him from the community.. ruining another persons fun and pushing them out of the game to eliminate competition is fair game right now.. DDT does it. you could to.