Splinter Topic: Motivation - Opportunity vs Necessity

Depraved

Azherae wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

CROW3 wrote: »

Good thoughts, @Azherae - as usual.

I’m wondering if between citizenship requirements, one freehold per account limits, and the up front cost of a freehold - There are enough constraints such that you would need a very well organized guild to take land speculation to a problematic level at scale.

I think individual realtors/speculators will paint themselves into a corner relatively quickly. They would either find themselves without a Freehold (with lots of capital), or with a Freehold they cling to and won’t sell.

Totally agree on the land grabbing; it’s a zero sum game, with advantages to guilds dominating a node.

Of course, the real lever in this equation is that all of those players pay the same sub. So, I think there’s some longer term revenue advantages for Intrepid to throwing the FFXIV crowd a really robust set of aesthetic options for those instanced apartments.

I believe that the land speculation can be avoided while retaining (rather, by increasing) the limits, and that the price that will be paid is 'denial of this content to a very large portion of the playerbase' which is the thing I have the problem with.

And as you know, this is not a personal problem. If it reaches the point where it is a 'personal problem' for my very tight knit family who are basically all 'definitely not casuals' then I have no condolence I can even offer to any other.

I just believe that 'repossessing someone's cool Trophy or functional furniture' is cleaner.

If your house is empty, why should the Node/State 'let you keep it' in a game like Ashes anyway? It's unrealistic. The Node Citizens would vote to have it taken from you.

I really really don't want to go all the way down to explaining how land's ability to produce is the only real value and the societal structures built up around it that we take for granted. It would become politics.

coughcommunismcough. so if you have 100 bucks nd you arent hungry, is it ok for me and my friend to beat u up and take your $100 so that we can eat? don't think so eh.

if I wanna buy land not build anything and just look at the grass, that's my right. its my money, my land, I do whatever I want with it. maybe I just wanna have a picnic with my girl or friends.

of course ahses has the war mechanics and all that, and its in the server best interest to have land producing something. that means your enemies will try to take it from you. its ridiculous that the same citizens who live in your area can vote and take it from you because they don't like what you do with your plot. i mean node allegiance suprseeds every other faction...

You're the sort of person that I need to write the book for.

Like, definitionally.

The people who decided it was 'not ok' to beat someone else up and take their $100 are the same people who decided what a '$100' was.

It is your land until someone takes it. It is your money until someone takes it. Do you know why you get to claim otherwise without being laughed at and then skewered on a pike?



Or as my friend says:

You know who doesn't agree with you...?

THE MONGOLS.

its still not ok. so vikings pillaging villages was ok?

why does it matter who decide what money was? do you think we were better before than now?

before money:

I can only produce apples. i want pears. you produce pears and you don't want apples, you want a horse. so now I have to try and trade with 549567675 until I can get something that can be traded for a horse. by the time I come back to you with the horse, your pears are spoiled its also harder to assign a value to things.

with money: I sell my apples to whoever is interested. they voluntarily buy them. nowi can go to you and buy pears, then you can use the money to buy a horse.

why not remove gold from mmorpg?

also, still evil for me to beat u up and take your money. otherwise, why do we have laws?

Wait you think we have laws because doing illegal things is evil? I take it you either aren't an American or don't study their history much whether you are or are not (this is still not politics, right? Someone call me out if it is).

Also you can remove gold from MMORPGs, that would be the entire point of the book. Not saying you should but that you can and that it is important to understand how and why you can that leads to understanding how to design MMORPG economies.

Some humans agreed at some point that it was okay for some people (without an army, no less) to buy potentially profitable land and do nothing beneficial with it.

If you want to design a fantasy MMO economy you have to start from the very bottom or mimic someone else's design or you will introduce holes that will quickly remind us why human behaviour is based on those agreements that we all take for granted.

Otherwise you will create a system that no bulk group of humans would be willing to live under, and they will not play your game with the goal of experiencing an economy.

laws describe what pattern of behavior is prohibited and tell you how you will be punished if you engage in that pattern of behavior. what is considered evil by a group, might not be considered evil by another group, however, we can agree that certain things are universally wrong. beating you up to take your things instead of me working hard to get them, is one of those things.

also, by your own logic. if there are 5 freeholds in your area that do metal processing, and you buy a freehold and you want to do metal processing, then you shouldn't be allowed. people should be able to vote and decide that hey we have too much metal processing and you should do wood processing or skin processing. in fact lets also vote and change 3 of those metal processing stations into other things.

Actually a bunch of people literally don't agree on that.

Some people believe that taxation is theft, but the government will 'beat you up' if you don't pay the taxes, and some people believe that the very concept of property is theft because it will always be taken to the extreme of 'X uses their claim to property, to deny access to some other resource'.

There are hundreds of laws worldwide about this, complex ones too.

You can try to extend my logic like that and I won't complain because in the end, trying to reduce this topic to simplicity is itself the 'wrong'. Now we're definitely at 'politics', whereas I prefer to just discuss economic things in the view of MMORPGs, so please proceed with any further interpretation you have of my position, and I'll probably concede it regardless of what it is.

Go big, it's fine.

you are still not getting it T_T

Yeah don't worry about it, I'm like a crazy anarchist anthropologist who looks too deep into the abyss of human nature and all that.

I'll never get it, I'm blind to the Truth from staring into said Abyss for too long.

I think there are cookies down there though.

while trying to be sarcastic, you are actually stating a reality. you refuse to learn the truth.

Percimes

NiKr wrote: »

Percimes wrote: »

They're not eyes. Those dark spots are raisins.

Things are worse than I thought

Sorry man, chocolate chips a reserved for the freehold owners.

Nerror

Nice posts @Azherae . I generally agree.

I think it's pretty clear Steven really likes exclusivity in many things. From cosmetics, to itemization, to flying mounts, and to housing. We already knew in-node housing was very limited, and to some extent we also knew freeholds would be, because they're placed in the open world. But in the past the wording from Steven sure didn't reflect just how exclusive it would be, combined with locking an entire essential Artisan branch behind it.

In-node housing will apparently also have its own utility, and now I fear it's going to to be another essential part of the game locked behind this gate.

It's starting to get to be too much honestly. I can personally play enough to get by anyway, but I don't want to play on a dead server after 6 months because the majority of the people can't ever hope to achieve their dreams ingame due to all the exclusivity.

Azherae

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

CROW3 wrote: »

Good thoughts, @Azherae - as usual.

I’m wondering if between citizenship requirements, one freehold per account limits, and the up front cost of a freehold - There are enough constraints such that you would need a very well organized guild to take land speculation to a problematic level at scale.

I think individual realtors/speculators will paint themselves into a corner relatively quickly. They would either find themselves without a Freehold (with lots of capital), or with a Freehold they cling to and won’t sell.

Totally agree on the land grabbing; it’s a zero sum game, with advantages to guilds dominating a node.

Of course, the real lever in this equation is that all of those players pay the same sub. So, I think there’s some longer term revenue advantages for Intrepid to throwing the FFXIV crowd a really robust set of aesthetic options for those instanced apartments.

I believe that the land speculation can be avoided while retaining (rather, by increasing) the limits, and that the price that will be paid is 'denial of this content to a very large portion of the playerbase' which is the thing I have the problem with.

And as you know, this is not a personal problem. If it reaches the point where it is a 'personal problem' for my very tight knit family who are basically all 'definitely not casuals' then I have no condolence I can even offer to any other.

I just believe that 'repossessing someone's cool Trophy or functional furniture' is cleaner.

If your house is empty, why should the Node/State 'let you keep it' in a game like Ashes anyway? It's unrealistic. The Node Citizens would vote to have it taken from you.

I really really don't want to go all the way down to explaining how land's ability to produce is the only real value and the societal structures built up around it that we take for granted. It would become politics.

coughcommunismcough. so if you have 100 bucks nd you arent hungry, is it ok for me and my friend to beat u up and take your $100 so that we can eat? don't think so eh.

if I wanna buy land not build anything and just look at the grass, that's my right. its my money, my land, I do whatever I want with it. maybe I just wanna have a picnic with my girl or friends.

of course ahses has the war mechanics and all that, and its in the server best interest to have land producing something. that means your enemies will try to take it from you. its ridiculous that the same citizens who live in your area can vote and take it from you because they don't like what you do with your plot. i mean node allegiance suprseeds every other faction...

You're the sort of person that I need to write the book for.

Like, definitionally.

The people who decided it was 'not ok' to beat someone else up and take their $100 are the same people who decided what a '$100' was.

It is your land until someone takes it. It is your money until someone takes it. Do you know why you get to claim otherwise without being laughed at and then skewered on a pike?



Or as my friend says:

You know who doesn't agree with you...?

THE MONGOLS.

its still not ok. so vikings pillaging villages was ok?

why does it matter who decide what money was? do you think we were better before than now?

before money:

I can only produce apples. i want pears. you produce pears and you don't want apples, you want a horse. so now I have to try and trade with 549567675 until I can get something that can be traded for a horse. by the time I come back to you with the horse, your pears are spoiled its also harder to assign a value to things.

with money: I sell my apples to whoever is interested. they voluntarily buy them. nowi can go to you and buy pears, then you can use the money to buy a horse.

why not remove gold from mmorpg?

also, still evil for me to beat u up and take your money. otherwise, why do we have laws?

Wait you think we have laws because doing illegal things is evil? I take it you either aren't an American or don't study their history much whether you are or are not (this is still not politics, right? Someone call me out if it is).

Also you can remove gold from MMORPGs, that would be the entire point of the book. Not saying you should but that you can and that it is important to understand how and why you can that leads to understanding how to design MMORPG economies.

Some humans agreed at some point that it was okay for some people (without an army, no less) to buy potentially profitable land and do nothing beneficial with it.

If you want to design a fantasy MMO economy you have to start from the very bottom or mimic someone else's design or you will introduce holes that will quickly remind us why human behaviour is based on those agreements that we all take for granted.

Otherwise you will create a system that no bulk group of humans would be willing to live under, and they will not play your game with the goal of experiencing an economy.

laws describe what pattern of behavior is prohibited and tell you how you will be punished if you engage in that pattern of behavior. what is considered evil by a group, might not be considered evil by another group, however, we can agree that certain things are universally wrong. beating you up to take your things instead of me working hard to get them, is one of those things.

also, by your own logic. if there are 5 freeholds in your area that do metal processing, and you buy a freehold and you want to do metal processing, then you shouldn't be allowed. people should be able to vote and decide that hey we have too much metal processing and you should do wood processing or skin processing. in fact lets also vote and change 3 of those metal processing stations into other things.

Actually a bunch of people literally don't agree on that.

Some people believe that taxation is theft, but the government will 'beat you up' if you don't pay the taxes, and some people believe that the very concept of property is theft because it will always be taken to the extreme of 'X uses their claim to property, to deny access to some other resource'.

There are hundreds of laws worldwide about this, complex ones too.

You can try to extend my logic like that and I won't complain because in the end, trying to reduce this topic to simplicity is itself the 'wrong'. Now we're definitely at 'politics', whereas I prefer to just discuss economic things in the view of MMORPGs, so please proceed with any further interpretation you have of my position, and I'll probably concede it regardless of what it is.

Go big, it's fine.

you are still not getting it T_T

Yeah don't worry about it, I'm like a crazy anarchist anthropologist who looks too deep into the abyss of human nature and all that.

I'll never get it, I'm blind to the Truth from staring into said Abyss for too long.

I think there are cookies down there though.

while trying to be sarcastic, you are actually stating a reality. you refuse to learn the truth.

I choose to be beyond both 'reality' and 'truth' as we normally discuss them once we hit 'morality as a whole', yes.

Completely agreed. Back to MMO Economics then.

Please feel free to further discuss your truth as it pertains to MMO economics, where I can contain my incredible arrogance and urge to act like a know-it-all down to the level where I feel it is reasonable to actually engage.

I believe we were at the idea that once someone buys a Freehold, they should not lose it without... let me check...

"Successful destructive violence aimed at their government."

EDIT: Sieging my Node should be illegal.

JamesSunderland

Damn, reading the whole thread made me almost imagine big guilds taking over BlackRock/Vanguard levels of real estate assets without the constant threat of direct war over said assets.

Open world freeholds will truly be very exclusive competitive assets like i expected and that certainly amuses me.

Depraved

Azherae wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

CROW3 wrote: »

Good thoughts, @Azherae - as usual.

I’m wondering if between citizenship requirements, one freehold per account limits, and the up front cost of a freehold - There are enough constraints such that you would need a very well organized guild to take land speculation to a problematic level at scale.

I think individual realtors/speculators will paint themselves into a corner relatively quickly. They would either find themselves without a Freehold (with lots of capital), or with a Freehold they cling to and won’t sell.

Totally agree on the land grabbing; it’s a zero sum game, with advantages to guilds dominating a node.

Of course, the real lever in this equation is that all of those players pay the same sub. So, I think there’s some longer term revenue advantages for Intrepid to throwing the FFXIV crowd a really robust set of aesthetic options for those instanced apartments.

I believe that the land speculation can be avoided while retaining (rather, by increasing) the limits, and that the price that will be paid is 'denial of this content to a very large portion of the playerbase' which is the thing I have the problem with.

And as you know, this is not a personal problem. If it reaches the point where it is a 'personal problem' for my very tight knit family who are basically all 'definitely not casuals' then I have no condolence I can even offer to any other.

I just believe that 'repossessing someone's cool Trophy or functional furniture' is cleaner.

If your house is empty, why should the Node/State 'let you keep it' in a game like Ashes anyway? It's unrealistic. The Node Citizens would vote to have it taken from you.

I really really don't want to go all the way down to explaining how land's ability to produce is the only real value and the societal structures built up around it that we take for granted. It would become politics.

coughcommunismcough. so if you have 100 bucks nd you arent hungry, is it ok for me and my friend to beat u up and take your $100 so that we can eat? don't think so eh.

if I wanna buy land not build anything and just look at the grass, that's my right. its my money, my land, I do whatever I want with it. maybe I just wanna have a picnic with my girl or friends.

of course ahses has the war mechanics and all that, and its in the server best interest to have land producing something. that means your enemies will try to take it from you. its ridiculous that the same citizens who live in your area can vote and take it from you because they don't like what you do with your plot. i mean node allegiance suprseeds every other faction...

You're the sort of person that I need to write the book for.

Like, definitionally.

The people who decided it was 'not ok' to beat someone else up and take their $100 are the same people who decided what a '$100' was.

It is your land until someone takes it. It is your money until someone takes it. Do you know why you get to claim otherwise without being laughed at and then skewered on a pike?



Or as my friend says:

You know who doesn't agree with you...?

THE MONGOLS.

its still not ok. so vikings pillaging villages was ok?

why does it matter who decide what money was? do you think we were better before than now?

before money:

I can only produce apples. i want pears. you produce pears and you don't want apples, you want a horse. so now I have to try and trade with 549567675 until I can get something that can be traded for a horse. by the time I come back to you with the horse, your pears are spoiled its also harder to assign a value to things.

with money: I sell my apples to whoever is interested. they voluntarily buy them. nowi can go to you and buy pears, then you can use the money to buy a horse.

why not remove gold from mmorpg?

also, still evil for me to beat u up and take your money. otherwise, why do we have laws?

Wait you think we have laws because doing illegal things is evil? I take it you either aren't an American or don't study their history much whether you are or are not (this is still not politics, right? Someone call me out if it is).

Also you can remove gold from MMORPGs, that would be the entire point of the book. Not saying you should but that you can and that it is important to understand how and why you can that leads to understanding how to design MMORPG economies.

Some humans agreed at some point that it was okay for some people (without an army, no less) to buy potentially profitable land and do nothing beneficial with it.

If you want to design a fantasy MMO economy you have to start from the very bottom or mimic someone else's design or you will introduce holes that will quickly remind us why human behaviour is based on those agreements that we all take for granted.

Otherwise you will create a system that no bulk group of humans would be willing to live under, and they will not play your game with the goal of experiencing an economy.

laws describe what pattern of behavior is prohibited and tell you how you will be punished if you engage in that pattern of behavior. what is considered evil by a group, might not be considered evil by another group, however, we can agree that certain things are universally wrong. beating you up to take your things instead of me working hard to get them, is one of those things.

also, by your own logic. if there are 5 freeholds in your area that do metal processing, and you buy a freehold and you want to do metal processing, then you shouldn't be allowed. people should be able to vote and decide that hey we have too much metal processing and you should do wood processing or skin processing. in fact lets also vote and change 3 of those metal processing stations into other things.

Actually a bunch of people literally don't agree on that.

Some people believe that taxation is theft, but the government will 'beat you up' if you don't pay the taxes, and some people believe that the very concept of property is theft because it will always be taken to the extreme of 'X uses their claim to property, to deny access to some other resource'.

There are hundreds of laws worldwide about this, complex ones too.

You can try to extend my logic like that and I won't complain because in the end, trying to reduce this topic to simplicity is itself the 'wrong'. Now we're definitely at 'politics', whereas I prefer to just discuss economic things in the view of MMORPGs, so please proceed with any further interpretation you have of my position, and I'll probably concede it regardless of what it is.

Go big, it's fine.

you are still not getting it T_T

Yeah don't worry about it, I'm like a crazy anarchist anthropologist who looks too deep into the abyss of human nature and all that.

I'll never get it, I'm blind to the Truth from staring into said Abyss for too long.

I think there are cookies down there though.

while trying to be sarcastic, you are actually stating a reality. you refuse to learn the truth.

I choose to be beyond both 'reality' and 'truth' as we normally discuss them once we hit 'morality as a whole', yes.

Completely agreed. Back to MMO Economics then.

Please feel free to further discuss your truth as it pertains to MMO economics, where I can contain my incredible arrogance and urge to act like a know-it-all down to the level where I feel it is reasonable to actually engage.

I believe we were at the idea that once someone buys a Freehold, they should not lose it without... let me check...

"Successful destructive violence aimed at their government."

EDIT: Sieging my Node should be illegal.

in MMO economics, its not good that your allies can vote to control what you do with your land. I'm going to vote so that you cant farm milk and instead you become a fisherman

Azherae

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

CROW3 wrote: »

Good thoughts, @Azherae - as usual.

I’m wondering if between citizenship requirements, one freehold per account limits, and the up front cost of a freehold - There are enough constraints such that you would need a very well organized guild to take land speculation to a problematic level at scale.

I think individual realtors/speculators will paint themselves into a corner relatively quickly. They would either find themselves without a Freehold (with lots of capital), or with a Freehold they cling to and won’t sell.

Totally agree on the land grabbing; it’s a zero sum game, with advantages to guilds dominating a node.

Of course, the real lever in this equation is that all of those players pay the same sub. So, I think there’s some longer term revenue advantages for Intrepid to throwing the FFXIV crowd a really robust set of aesthetic options for those instanced apartments.

I believe that the land speculation can be avoided while retaining (rather, by increasing) the limits, and that the price that will be paid is 'denial of this content to a very large portion of the playerbase' which is the thing I have the problem with.

And as you know, this is not a personal problem. If it reaches the point where it is a 'personal problem' for my very tight knit family who are basically all 'definitely not casuals' then I have no condolence I can even offer to any other.

I just believe that 'repossessing someone's cool Trophy or functional furniture' is cleaner.

If your house is empty, why should the Node/State 'let you keep it' in a game like Ashes anyway? It's unrealistic. The Node Citizens would vote to have it taken from you.

I really really don't want to go all the way down to explaining how land's ability to produce is the only real value and the societal structures built up around it that we take for granted. It would become politics.

coughcommunismcough. so if you have 100 bucks nd you arent hungry, is it ok for me and my friend to beat u up and take your $100 so that we can eat? don't think so eh.

if I wanna buy land not build anything and just look at the grass, that's my right. its my money, my land, I do whatever I want with it. maybe I just wanna have a picnic with my girl or friends.

of course ahses has the war mechanics and all that, and its in the server best interest to have land producing something. that means your enemies will try to take it from you. its ridiculous that the same citizens who live in your area can vote and take it from you because they don't like what you do with your plot. i mean node allegiance suprseeds every other faction...

You're the sort of person that I need to write the book for.

Like, definitionally.

The people who decided it was 'not ok' to beat someone else up and take their $100 are the same people who decided what a '$100' was.

It is your land until someone takes it. It is your money until someone takes it. Do you know why you get to claim otherwise without being laughed at and then skewered on a pike?



Or as my friend says:

You know who doesn't agree with you...?

THE MONGOLS.

its still not ok. so vikings pillaging villages was ok?

why does it matter who decide what money was? do you think we were better before than now?

before money:

I can only produce apples. i want pears. you produce pears and you don't want apples, you want a horse. so now I have to try and trade with 549567675 until I can get something that can be traded for a horse. by the time I come back to you with the horse, your pears are spoiled its also harder to assign a value to things.

with money: I sell my apples to whoever is interested. they voluntarily buy them. nowi can go to you and buy pears, then you can use the money to buy a horse.

why not remove gold from mmorpg?

also, still evil for me to beat u up and take your money. otherwise, why do we have laws?

Wait you think we have laws because doing illegal things is evil? I take it you either aren't an American or don't study their history much whether you are or are not (this is still not politics, right? Someone call me out if it is).

Also you can remove gold from MMORPGs, that would be the entire point of the book. Not saying you should but that you can and that it is important to understand how and why you can that leads to understanding how to design MMORPG economies.

Some humans agreed at some point that it was okay for some people (without an army, no less) to buy potentially profitable land and do nothing beneficial with it.

If you want to design a fantasy MMO economy you have to start from the very bottom or mimic someone else's design or you will introduce holes that will quickly remind us why human behaviour is based on those agreements that we all take for granted.

Otherwise you will create a system that no bulk group of humans would be willing to live under, and they will not play your game with the goal of experiencing an economy.

laws describe what pattern of behavior is prohibited and tell you how you will be punished if you engage in that pattern of behavior. what is considered evil by a group, might not be considered evil by another group, however, we can agree that certain things are universally wrong. beating you up to take your things instead of me working hard to get them, is one of those things.

also, by your own logic. if there are 5 freeholds in your area that do metal processing, and you buy a freehold and you want to do metal processing, then you shouldn't be allowed. people should be able to vote and decide that hey we have too much metal processing and you should do wood processing or skin processing. in fact lets also vote and change 3 of those metal processing stations into other things.

Actually a bunch of people literally don't agree on that.

Some people believe that taxation is theft, but the government will 'beat you up' if you don't pay the taxes, and some people believe that the very concept of property is theft because it will always be taken to the extreme of 'X uses their claim to property, to deny access to some other resource'.

There are hundreds of laws worldwide about this, complex ones too.

You can try to extend my logic like that and I won't complain because in the end, trying to reduce this topic to simplicity is itself the 'wrong'. Now we're definitely at 'politics', whereas I prefer to just discuss economic things in the view of MMORPGs, so please proceed with any further interpretation you have of my position, and I'll probably concede it regardless of what it is.

Go big, it's fine.

you are still not getting it T_T

Yeah don't worry about it, I'm like a crazy anarchist anthropologist who looks too deep into the abyss of human nature and all that.

I'll never get it, I'm blind to the Truth from staring into said Abyss for too long.

I think there are cookies down there though.

while trying to be sarcastic, you are actually stating a reality. you refuse to learn the truth.

I choose to be beyond both 'reality' and 'truth' as we normally discuss them once we hit 'morality as a whole', yes.

Completely agreed. Back to MMO Economics then.

Please feel free to further discuss your truth as it pertains to MMO economics, where I can contain my incredible arrogance and urge to act like a know-it-all down to the level where I feel it is reasonable to actually engage.

I believe we were at the idea that once someone buys a Freehold, they should not lose it without... let me check...

"Successful destructive violence aimed at their government."

EDIT: Sieging my Node should be illegal.

in MMO economics, its not good that your allies can vote to control what you do with your land. I'm going to vote so that you cant farm milk and instead you become a fisherman

Ah but no one said that. Also your allies can always vote that you can't farm milk in Ashes, it's simple.

Whenever someone sees you trying to do it, they warn you not to do it, and if you do it they kill you.

Then they just ignore the penalty (if they all agreed to this, no one will kill any Red players on your Freehold for example, this is unrealistic but I feel like you get the point).

Is it fair? Reasonable? No, we make those decisions differently.

What about not paying taxes? If you decide you're not paying them, do your allies get to vote you out of Node Citizenship? Is that okay? What about if you can't afford to pay your taxes because you keep farming milk when no one in the area needs it and the nearest other Node is a huge Dairy Farm collective and your milk is always more expensive?

Surely you should be allowed to raise cows and get milk on your own land, but should you also be allowed to not pay the taxes? And what does this have to do with literally anything we were talking about? See, we were talking about people choosing not to farm anything at all.

Do you have an opinion on what should happen to Freeholds when the owner can't pay the taxes?

Depraved

Azherae wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

CROW3 wrote: »

Good thoughts, @Azherae - as usual.

I’m wondering if between citizenship requirements, one freehold per account limits, and the up front cost of a freehold - There are enough constraints such that you would need a very well organized guild to take land speculation to a problematic level at scale.

I think individual realtors/speculators will paint themselves into a corner relatively quickly. They would either find themselves without a Freehold (with lots of capital), or with a Freehold they cling to and won’t sell.

Totally agree on the land grabbing; it’s a zero sum game, with advantages to guilds dominating a node.

Of course, the real lever in this equation is that all of those players pay the same sub. So, I think there’s some longer term revenue advantages for Intrepid to throwing the FFXIV crowd a really robust set of aesthetic options for those instanced apartments.

I believe that the land speculation can be avoided while retaining (rather, by increasing) the limits, and that the price that will be paid is 'denial of this content to a very large portion of the playerbase' which is the thing I have the problem with.

And as you know, this is not a personal problem. If it reaches the point where it is a 'personal problem' for my very tight knit family who are basically all 'definitely not casuals' then I have no condolence I can even offer to any other.

I just believe that 'repossessing someone's cool Trophy or functional furniture' is cleaner.

If your house is empty, why should the Node/State 'let you keep it' in a game like Ashes anyway? It's unrealistic. The Node Citizens would vote to have it taken from you.

I really really don't want to go all the way down to explaining how land's ability to produce is the only real value and the societal structures built up around it that we take for granted. It would become politics.

coughcommunismcough. so if you have 100 bucks nd you arent hungry, is it ok for me and my friend to beat u up and take your $100 so that we can eat? don't think so eh.

if I wanna buy land not build anything and just look at the grass, that's my right. its my money, my land, I do whatever I want with it. maybe I just wanna have a picnic with my girl or friends.

of course ahses has the war mechanics and all that, and its in the server best interest to have land producing something. that means your enemies will try to take it from you. its ridiculous that the same citizens who live in your area can vote and take it from you because they don't like what you do with your plot. i mean node allegiance suprseeds every other faction...

You're the sort of person that I need to write the book for.

Like, definitionally.

The people who decided it was 'not ok' to beat someone else up and take their $100 are the same people who decided what a '$100' was.

It is your land until someone takes it. It is your money until someone takes it. Do you know why you get to claim otherwise without being laughed at and then skewered on a pike?



Or as my friend says:

You know who doesn't agree with you...?

THE MONGOLS.

its still not ok. so vikings pillaging villages was ok?

why does it matter who decide what money was? do you think we were better before than now?

before money:

I can only produce apples. i want pears. you produce pears and you don't want apples, you want a horse. so now I have to try and trade with 549567675 until I can get something that can be traded for a horse. by the time I come back to you with the horse, your pears are spoiled its also harder to assign a value to things.

with money: I sell my apples to whoever is interested. they voluntarily buy them. nowi can go to you and buy pears, then you can use the money to buy a horse.

why not remove gold from mmorpg?

also, still evil for me to beat u up and take your money. otherwise, why do we have laws?

Wait you think we have laws because doing illegal things is evil? I take it you either aren't an American or don't study their history much whether you are or are not (this is still not politics, right? Someone call me out if it is).

Also you can remove gold from MMORPGs, that would be the entire point of the book. Not saying you should but that you can and that it is important to understand how and why you can that leads to understanding how to design MMORPG economies.

Some humans agreed at some point that it was okay for some people (without an army, no less) to buy potentially profitable land and do nothing beneficial with it.

If you want to design a fantasy MMO economy you have to start from the very bottom or mimic someone else's design or you will introduce holes that will quickly remind us why human behaviour is based on those agreements that we all take for granted.

Otherwise you will create a system that no bulk group of humans would be willing to live under, and they will not play your game with the goal of experiencing an economy.

laws describe what pattern of behavior is prohibited and tell you how you will be punished if you engage in that pattern of behavior. what is considered evil by a group, might not be considered evil by another group, however, we can agree that certain things are universally wrong. beating you up to take your things instead of me working hard to get them, is one of those things.

also, by your own logic. if there are 5 freeholds in your area that do metal processing, and you buy a freehold and you want to do metal processing, then you shouldn't be allowed. people should be able to vote and decide that hey we have too much metal processing and you should do wood processing or skin processing. in fact lets also vote and change 3 of those metal processing stations into other things.

Actually a bunch of people literally don't agree on that.

Some people believe that taxation is theft, but the government will 'beat you up' if you don't pay the taxes, and some people believe that the very concept of property is theft because it will always be taken to the extreme of 'X uses their claim to property, to deny access to some other resource'.

There are hundreds of laws worldwide about this, complex ones too.

You can try to extend my logic like that and I won't complain because in the end, trying to reduce this topic to simplicity is itself the 'wrong'. Now we're definitely at 'politics', whereas I prefer to just discuss economic things in the view of MMORPGs, so please proceed with any further interpretation you have of my position, and I'll probably concede it regardless of what it is.

Go big, it's fine.

you are still not getting it T_T

Yeah don't worry about it, I'm like a crazy anarchist anthropologist who looks too deep into the abyss of human nature and all that.

I'll never get it, I'm blind to the Truth from staring into said Abyss for too long.

I think there are cookies down there though.

while trying to be sarcastic, you are actually stating a reality. you refuse to learn the truth.

I choose to be beyond both 'reality' and 'truth' as we normally discuss them once we hit 'morality as a whole', yes.

Completely agreed. Back to MMO Economics then.

Please feel free to further discuss your truth as it pertains to MMO economics, where I can contain my incredible arrogance and urge to act like a know-it-all down to the level where I feel it is reasonable to actually engage.

I believe we were at the idea that once someone buys a Freehold, they should not lose it without... let me check...

"Successful destructive violence aimed at their government."

EDIT: Sieging my Node should be illegal.

in MMO economics, its not good that your allies can vote to control what you do with your land. I'm going to vote so that you cant farm milk and instead you become a fisherman

Ah but no one said that. Also your allies can always vote that you can't farm milk in Ashes, it's simple.

Whenever someone sees you trying to do it, they warn you not to do it, and if you do it they kill you.

Then they just ignore the penalty (if they all agreed to this, no one will kill any Red players on your Freehold for example, this is unrealistic but I feel like you get the point).

Is it fair? Reasonable? No, we make those decisions differently.

What about not paying taxes? If you decide you're not paying them, do your allies get to vote you out of Node Citizenship? Is that okay? What about if you can't afford to pay your taxes because you keep farming milk when no one in the area needs it and the nearest other Node is a huge Dairy Farm collective and your milk is always more expensive?

Surely you should be allowed to raise cows and get milk on your own land, but should you also be allowed to not pay the taxes? And what does this have to do with literally anything we were talking about? See, we were talking about people choosing not to farm anything at all.

Do you have an opinion on what should happen to Freeholds when the owner can't pay the taxes?

can they kill you in your freehold? they arent your allies anymore. do you see where I'm going now, how your own logic makes no sense. i literally just used your own logic against you and you refuted it to a point.

killing a player is not the same as voting to take away their freehold or voting (through an ingame system) that you cant do a certain activity in your freehold.

also, you might not always win the PVP if you are the attacker.

afaik taxes are payed automatically when you spend money in a node...cant have a choice on that, other than not spending the money and going somewhere else.

Azherae

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

CROW3 wrote: »

Good thoughts, @Azherae - as usual.

I’m wondering if between citizenship requirements, one freehold per account limits, and the up front cost of a freehold - There are enough constraints such that you would need a very well organized guild to take land speculation to a problematic level at scale.

I think individual realtors/speculators will paint themselves into a corner relatively quickly. They would either find themselves without a Freehold (with lots of capital), or with a Freehold they cling to and won’t sell.

Totally agree on the land grabbing; it’s a zero sum game, with advantages to guilds dominating a node.

Of course, the real lever in this equation is that all of those players pay the same sub. So, I think there’s some longer term revenue advantages for Intrepid to throwing the FFXIV crowd a really robust set of aesthetic options for those instanced apartments.

I believe that the land speculation can be avoided while retaining (rather, by increasing) the limits, and that the price that will be paid is 'denial of this content to a very large portion of the playerbase' which is the thing I have the problem with.

And as you know, this is not a personal problem. If it reaches the point where it is a 'personal problem' for my very tight knit family who are basically all 'definitely not casuals' then I have no condolence I can even offer to any other.

I just believe that 'repossessing someone's cool Trophy or functional furniture' is cleaner.

If your house is empty, why should the Node/State 'let you keep it' in a game like Ashes anyway? It's unrealistic. The Node Citizens would vote to have it taken from you.

I really really don't want to go all the way down to explaining how land's ability to produce is the only real value and the societal structures built up around it that we take for granted. It would become politics.

coughcommunismcough. so if you have 100 bucks nd you arent hungry, is it ok for me and my friend to beat u up and take your $100 so that we can eat? don't think so eh.

if I wanna buy land not build anything and just look at the grass, that's my right. its my money, my land, I do whatever I want with it. maybe I just wanna have a picnic with my girl or friends.

of course ahses has the war mechanics and all that, and its in the server best interest to have land producing something. that means your enemies will try to take it from you. its ridiculous that the same citizens who live in your area can vote and take it from you because they don't like what you do with your plot. i mean node allegiance suprseeds every other faction...

You're the sort of person that I need to write the book for.

Like, definitionally.

The people who decided it was 'not ok' to beat someone else up and take their $100 are the same people who decided what a '$100' was.

It is your land until someone takes it. It is your money until someone takes it. Do you know why you get to claim otherwise without being laughed at and then skewered on a pike?



Or as my friend says:

You know who doesn't agree with you...?

THE MONGOLS.

its still not ok. so vikings pillaging villages was ok?

why does it matter who decide what money was? do you think we were better before than now?

before money:

I can only produce apples. i want pears. you produce pears and you don't want apples, you want a horse. so now I have to try and trade with 549567675 until I can get something that can be traded for a horse. by the time I come back to you with the horse, your pears are spoiled its also harder to assign a value to things.

with money: I sell my apples to whoever is interested. they voluntarily buy them. nowi can go to you and buy pears, then you can use the money to buy a horse.

why not remove gold from mmorpg?

also, still evil for me to beat u up and take your money. otherwise, why do we have laws?

Wait you think we have laws because doing illegal things is evil? I take it you either aren't an American or don't study their history much whether you are or are not (this is still not politics, right? Someone call me out if it is).

Also you can remove gold from MMORPGs, that would be the entire point of the book. Not saying you should but that you can and that it is important to understand how and why you can that leads to understanding how to design MMORPG economies.

Some humans agreed at some point that it was okay for some people (without an army, no less) to buy potentially profitable land and do nothing beneficial with it.

If you want to design a fantasy MMO economy you have to start from the very bottom or mimic someone else's design or you will introduce holes that will quickly remind us why human behaviour is based on those agreements that we all take for granted.

Otherwise you will create a system that no bulk group of humans would be willing to live under, and they will not play your game with the goal of experiencing an economy.

laws describe what pattern of behavior is prohibited and tell you how you will be punished if you engage in that pattern of behavior. what is considered evil by a group, might not be considered evil by another group, however, we can agree that certain things are universally wrong. beating you up to take your things instead of me working hard to get them, is one of those things.

also, by your own logic. if there are 5 freeholds in your area that do metal processing, and you buy a freehold and you want to do metal processing, then you shouldn't be allowed. people should be able to vote and decide that hey we have too much metal processing and you should do wood processing or skin processing. in fact lets also vote and change 3 of those metal processing stations into other things.

Actually a bunch of people literally don't agree on that.

Some people believe that taxation is theft, but the government will 'beat you up' if you don't pay the taxes, and some people believe that the very concept of property is theft because it will always be taken to the extreme of 'X uses their claim to property, to deny access to some other resource'.

There are hundreds of laws worldwide about this, complex ones too.

You can try to extend my logic like that and I won't complain because in the end, trying to reduce this topic to simplicity is itself the 'wrong'. Now we're definitely at 'politics', whereas I prefer to just discuss economic things in the view of MMORPGs, so please proceed with any further interpretation you have of my position, and I'll probably concede it regardless of what it is.

Go big, it's fine.

you are still not getting it T_T

Yeah don't worry about it, I'm like a crazy anarchist anthropologist who looks too deep into the abyss of human nature and all that.

I'll never get it, I'm blind to the Truth from staring into said Abyss for too long.

I think there are cookies down there though.

while trying to be sarcastic, you are actually stating a reality. you refuse to learn the truth.

I choose to be beyond both 'reality' and 'truth' as we normally discuss them once we hit 'morality as a whole', yes.

Completely agreed. Back to MMO Economics then.

Please feel free to further discuss your truth as it pertains to MMO economics, where I can contain my incredible arrogance and urge to act like a know-it-all down to the level where I feel it is reasonable to actually engage.

I believe we were at the idea that once someone buys a Freehold, they should not lose it without... let me check...

"Successful destructive violence aimed at their government."

EDIT: Sieging my Node should be illegal.

in MMO economics, its not good that your allies can vote to control what you do with your land. I'm going to vote so that you cant farm milk and instead you become a fisherman

Ah but no one said that. Also your allies can always vote that you can't farm milk in Ashes, it's simple.

Whenever someone sees you trying to do it, they warn you not to do it, and if you do it they kill you.

Then they just ignore the penalty (if they all agreed to this, no one will kill any Red players on your Freehold for example, this is unrealistic but I feel like you get the point).

Is it fair? Reasonable? No, we make those decisions differently.

What about not paying taxes? If you decide you're not paying them, do your allies get to vote you out of Node Citizenship? Is that okay? What about if you can't afford to pay your taxes because you keep farming milk when no one in the area needs it and the nearest other Node is a huge Dairy Farm collective and your milk is always more expensive?

Surely you should be allowed to raise cows and get milk on your own land, but should you also be allowed to not pay the taxes? And what does this have to do with literally anything we were talking about? See, we were talking about people choosing not to farm anything at all.

Do you have an opinion on what should happen to Freeholds when the owner can't pay the taxes?

can they kill you in your freehold? they arent your allies anymore. do you see where I'm going now, how your own logic makes no sense. i literally just used your own logic against you and you refuted it to a point.

killing a player is not the same as voting to take away their freehold or voting (through an ingame system) that you cant do a certain activity in your freehold.

also, you might not always win the PVP if you are the attacker.

afaik taxes are payed automatically when you spend money in a node...cant have a choice on that, other than not spending the money and going somewhere else.

As far as we know, you are only safe in your house.

You can be attacked while attempting to get your milk from your cow.

I will hope that you can't actually be stopped during the animation since you can't be CCed during it.

I'll address the rest too, but I just want to make sure we're both clear on this point, that if a group of people (presumably a larger group, otherwise we don't care how they vote, right? They'd lose the vote) shows up to your Freehold to decide that you don't get to milk your cows that night, until you 'bring more people' (to the point where you would win the vote) or 'exceed their violence' (with or without more people) you don't get to milk your cow.

I don't care if it's the same, I just want to make sure you understand what I'm saying.

Depraved

Azherae wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

CROW3 wrote: »

Good thoughts, @Azherae - as usual.

I’m wondering if between citizenship requirements, one freehold per account limits, and the up front cost of a freehold - There are enough constraints such that you would need a very well organized guild to take land speculation to a problematic level at scale.

I think individual realtors/speculators will paint themselves into a corner relatively quickly. They would either find themselves without a Freehold (with lots of capital), or with a Freehold they cling to and won’t sell.

Totally agree on the land grabbing; it’s a zero sum game, with advantages to guilds dominating a node.

Of course, the real lever in this equation is that all of those players pay the same sub. So, I think there’s some longer term revenue advantages for Intrepid to throwing the FFXIV crowd a really robust set of aesthetic options for those instanced apartments.

I believe that the land speculation can be avoided while retaining (rather, by increasing) the limits, and that the price that will be paid is 'denial of this content to a very large portion of the playerbase' which is the thing I have the problem with.

And as you know, this is not a personal problem. If it reaches the point where it is a 'personal problem' for my very tight knit family who are basically all 'definitely not casuals' then I have no condolence I can even offer to any other.

I just believe that 'repossessing someone's cool Trophy or functional furniture' is cleaner.

If your house is empty, why should the Node/State 'let you keep it' in a game like Ashes anyway? It's unrealistic. The Node Citizens would vote to have it taken from you.

I really really don't want to go all the way down to explaining how land's ability to produce is the only real value and the societal structures built up around it that we take for granted. It would become politics.

coughcommunismcough. so if you have 100 bucks nd you arent hungry, is it ok for me and my friend to beat u up and take your $100 so that we can eat? don't think so eh.

if I wanna buy land not build anything and just look at the grass, that's my right. its my money, my land, I do whatever I want with it. maybe I just wanna have a picnic with my girl or friends.

of course ahses has the war mechanics and all that, and its in the server best interest to have land producing something. that means your enemies will try to take it from you. its ridiculous that the same citizens who live in your area can vote and take it from you because they don't like what you do with your plot. i mean node allegiance suprseeds every other faction...

You're the sort of person that I need to write the book for.

Like, definitionally.

The people who decided it was 'not ok' to beat someone else up and take their $100 are the same people who decided what a '$100' was.

It is your land until someone takes it. It is your money until someone takes it. Do you know why you get to claim otherwise without being laughed at and then skewered on a pike?



Or as my friend says:

You know who doesn't agree with you...?

THE MONGOLS.

its still not ok. so vikings pillaging villages was ok?

why does it matter who decide what money was? do you think we were better before than now?

before money:

I can only produce apples. i want pears. you produce pears and you don't want apples, you want a horse. so now I have to try and trade with 549567675 until I can get something that can be traded for a horse. by the time I come back to you with the horse, your pears are spoiled its also harder to assign a value to things.

with money: I sell my apples to whoever is interested. they voluntarily buy them. nowi can go to you and buy pears, then you can use the money to buy a horse.

why not remove gold from mmorpg?

also, still evil for me to beat u up and take your money. otherwise, why do we have laws?

Wait you think we have laws because doing illegal things is evil? I take it you either aren't an American or don't study their history much whether you are or are not (this is still not politics, right? Someone call me out if it is).

Also you can remove gold from MMORPGs, that would be the entire point of the book. Not saying you should but that you can and that it is important to understand how and why you can that leads to understanding how to design MMORPG economies.

Some humans agreed at some point that it was okay for some people (without an army, no less) to buy potentially profitable land and do nothing beneficial with it.

If you want to design a fantasy MMO economy you have to start from the very bottom or mimic someone else's design or you will introduce holes that will quickly remind us why human behaviour is based on those agreements that we all take for granted.

Otherwise you will create a system that no bulk group of humans would be willing to live under, and they will not play your game with the goal of experiencing an economy.

laws describe what pattern of behavior is prohibited and tell you how you will be punished if you engage in that pattern of behavior. what is considered evil by a group, might not be considered evil by another group, however, we can agree that certain things are universally wrong. beating you up to take your things instead of me working hard to get them, is one of those things.

also, by your own logic. if there are 5 freeholds in your area that do metal processing, and you buy a freehold and you want to do metal processing, then you shouldn't be allowed. people should be able to vote and decide that hey we have too much metal processing and you should do wood processing or skin processing. in fact lets also vote and change 3 of those metal processing stations into other things.

Actually a bunch of people literally don't agree on that.

Some people believe that taxation is theft, but the government will 'beat you up' if you don't pay the taxes, and some people believe that the very concept of property is theft because it will always be taken to the extreme of 'X uses their claim to property, to deny access to some other resource'.

There are hundreds of laws worldwide about this, complex ones too.

You can try to extend my logic like that and I won't complain because in the end, trying to reduce this topic to simplicity is itself the 'wrong'. Now we're definitely at 'politics', whereas I prefer to just discuss economic things in the view of MMORPGs, so please proceed with any further interpretation you have of my position, and I'll probably concede it regardless of what it is.

Go big, it's fine.

you are still not getting it T_T

Yeah don't worry about it, I'm like a crazy anarchist anthropologist who looks too deep into the abyss of human nature and all that.

I'll never get it, I'm blind to the Truth from staring into said Abyss for too long.

I think there are cookies down there though.

while trying to be sarcastic, you are actually stating a reality. you refuse to learn the truth.

I choose to be beyond both 'reality' and 'truth' as we normally discuss them once we hit 'morality as a whole', yes.

Completely agreed. Back to MMO Economics then.

Please feel free to further discuss your truth as it pertains to MMO economics, where I can contain my incredible arrogance and urge to act like a know-it-all down to the level where I feel it is reasonable to actually engage.

I believe we were at the idea that once someone buys a Freehold, they should not lose it without... let me check...

"Successful destructive violence aimed at their government."

EDIT: Sieging my Node should be illegal.

in MMO economics, its not good that your allies can vote to control what you do with your land. I'm going to vote so that you cant farm milk and instead you become a fisherman

Ah but no one said that. Also your allies can always vote that you can't farm milk in Ashes, it's simple.

Whenever someone sees you trying to do it, they warn you not to do it, and if you do it they kill you.

Then they just ignore the penalty (if they all agreed to this, no one will kill any Red players on your Freehold for example, this is unrealistic but I feel like you get the point).

Is it fair? Reasonable? No, we make those decisions differently.

What about not paying taxes? If you decide you're not paying them, do your allies get to vote you out of Node Citizenship? Is that okay? What about if you can't afford to pay your taxes because you keep farming milk when no one in the area needs it and the nearest other Node is a huge Dairy Farm collective and your milk is always more expensive?

Surely you should be allowed to raise cows and get milk on your own land, but should you also be allowed to not pay the taxes? And what does this have to do with literally anything we were talking about? See, we were talking about people choosing not to farm anything at all.

Do you have an opinion on what should happen to Freeholds when the owner can't pay the taxes?

can they kill you in your freehold? they arent your allies anymore. do you see where I'm going now, how your own logic makes no sense. i literally just used your own logic against you and you refuted it to a point.

killing a player is not the same as voting to take away their freehold or voting (through an ingame system) that you cant do a certain activity in your freehold.

also, you might not always win the PVP if you are the attacker.

afaik taxes are payed automatically when you spend money in a node...cant have a choice on that, other than not spending the money and going somewhere else.

As far as we know, you are only safe in your house.

You can be attacked while attempting to get your milk from your cow.

I will hope that you can't actually be stopped during the animation since you can't be CCed during it.

I'll address the rest too, but I just want to make sure we're both clear on this point, that if a group of people (presumably a larger group, otherwise we don't care how they vote, right? They'd lose the vote) shows up to your Freehold to decide that you don't get to milk your cows that night, until you 'bring more people' (to the point where you would win the vote) or 'exceed their violence' (with or without more people) you don't get to milk your cow.

I don't care if it's the same, I just want to make sure you understand what I'm saying.

you know what the difference is?

we have to fight and the winner wont be decided on a vote. it will be decided based on competence. if you want me to not get my milk tonight, you have to spend time getting people, possibly from another node, get gear, learn how to pvp, e coordinated, etc and I have to do the same in order for me to push back. there are also consequences for doing such things.

on the other hand, what you suggest (or I think you are suggesting) is some kind of voting interface where we can decide what other players will do in their freehold. they will be forced to do that we consider best or they wont play the game. they wont even have a chance to defend themselves. sounds like cancel culture to me tbh.

Azherae

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

CROW3 wrote: »

Good thoughts, @Azherae - as usual.

I’m wondering if between citizenship requirements, one freehold per account limits, and the up front cost of a freehold - There are enough constraints such that you would need a very well organized guild to take land speculation to a problematic level at scale.

I think individual realtors/speculators will paint themselves into a corner relatively quickly. They would either find themselves without a Freehold (with lots of capital), or with a Freehold they cling to and won’t sell.

Totally agree on the land grabbing; it’s a zero sum game, with advantages to guilds dominating a node.

Of course, the real lever in this equation is that all of those players pay the same sub. So, I think there’s some longer term revenue advantages for Intrepid to throwing the FFXIV crowd a really robust set of aesthetic options for those instanced apartments.

I believe that the land speculation can be avoided while retaining (rather, by increasing) the limits, and that the price that will be paid is 'denial of this content to a very large portion of the playerbase' which is the thing I have the problem with.

And as you know, this is not a personal problem. If it reaches the point where it is a 'personal problem' for my very tight knit family who are basically all 'definitely not casuals' then I have no condolence I can even offer to any other.

I just believe that 'repossessing someone's cool Trophy or functional furniture' is cleaner.

If your house is empty, why should the Node/State 'let you keep it' in a game like Ashes anyway? It's unrealistic. The Node Citizens would vote to have it taken from you.

I really really don't want to go all the way down to explaining how land's ability to produce is the only real value and the societal structures built up around it that we take for granted. It would become politics.

coughcommunismcough. so if you have 100 bucks nd you arent hungry, is it ok for me and my friend to beat u up and take your $100 so that we can eat? don't think so eh.

if I wanna buy land not build anything and just look at the grass, that's my right. its my money, my land, I do whatever I want with it. maybe I just wanna have a picnic with my girl or friends.

of course ahses has the war mechanics and all that, and its in the server best interest to have land producing something. that means your enemies will try to take it from you. its ridiculous that the same citizens who live in your area can vote and take it from you because they don't like what you do with your plot. i mean node allegiance suprseeds every other faction...

You're the sort of person that I need to write the book for.

Like, definitionally.

The people who decided it was 'not ok' to beat someone else up and take their $100 are the same people who decided what a '$100' was.

It is your land until someone takes it. It is your money until someone takes it. Do you know why you get to claim otherwise without being laughed at and then skewered on a pike?



Or as my friend says:

You know who doesn't agree with you...?

THE MONGOLS.

its still not ok. so vikings pillaging villages was ok?

why does it matter who decide what money was? do you think we were better before than now?

before money:

I can only produce apples. i want pears. you produce pears and you don't want apples, you want a horse. so now I have to try and trade with 549567675 until I can get something that can be traded for a horse. by the time I come back to you with the horse, your pears are spoiled its also harder to assign a value to things.

with money: I sell my apples to whoever is interested. they voluntarily buy them. nowi can go to you and buy pears, then you can use the money to buy a horse.

why not remove gold from mmorpg?

also, still evil for me to beat u up and take your money. otherwise, why do we have laws?

Wait you think we have laws because doing illegal things is evil? I take it you either aren't an American or don't study their history much whether you are or are not (this is still not politics, right? Someone call me out if it is).

Also you can remove gold from MMORPGs, that would be the entire point of the book. Not saying you should but that you can and that it is important to understand how and why you can that leads to understanding how to design MMORPG economies.

Some humans agreed at some point that it was okay for some people (without an army, no less) to buy potentially profitable land and do nothing beneficial with it.

If you want to design a fantasy MMO economy you have to start from the very bottom or mimic someone else's design or you will introduce holes that will quickly remind us why human behaviour is based on those agreements that we all take for granted.

Otherwise you will create a system that no bulk group of humans would be willing to live under, and they will not play your game with the goal of experiencing an economy.

laws describe what pattern of behavior is prohibited and tell you how you will be punished if you engage in that pattern of behavior. what is considered evil by a group, might not be considered evil by another group, however, we can agree that certain things are universally wrong. beating you up to take your things instead of me working hard to get them, is one of those things.

also, by your own logic. if there are 5 freeholds in your area that do metal processing, and you buy a freehold and you want to do metal processing, then you shouldn't be allowed. people should be able to vote and decide that hey we have too much metal processing and you should do wood processing or skin processing. in fact lets also vote and change 3 of those metal processing stations into other things.

Actually a bunch of people literally don't agree on that.

Some people believe that taxation is theft, but the government will 'beat you up' if you don't pay the taxes, and some people believe that the very concept of property is theft because it will always be taken to the extreme of 'X uses their claim to property, to deny access to some other resource'.

There are hundreds of laws worldwide about this, complex ones too.

You can try to extend my logic like that and I won't complain because in the end, trying to reduce this topic to simplicity is itself the 'wrong'. Now we're definitely at 'politics', whereas I prefer to just discuss economic things in the view of MMORPGs, so please proceed with any further interpretation you have of my position, and I'll probably concede it regardless of what it is.

Go big, it's fine.

you are still not getting it T_T

Yeah don't worry about it, I'm like a crazy anarchist anthropologist who looks too deep into the abyss of human nature and all that.

I'll never get it, I'm blind to the Truth from staring into said Abyss for too long.

I think there are cookies down there though.

while trying to be sarcastic, you are actually stating a reality. you refuse to learn the truth.

I choose to be beyond both 'reality' and 'truth' as we normally discuss them once we hit 'morality as a whole', yes.

Completely agreed. Back to MMO Economics then.

Please feel free to further discuss your truth as it pertains to MMO economics, where I can contain my incredible arrogance and urge to act like a know-it-all down to the level where I feel it is reasonable to actually engage.

I believe we were at the idea that once someone buys a Freehold, they should not lose it without... let me check...

"Successful destructive violence aimed at their government."

EDIT: Sieging my Node should be illegal.

in MMO economics, its not good that your allies can vote to control what you do with your land. I'm going to vote so that you cant farm milk and instead you become a fisherman

Ah but no one said that. Also your allies can always vote that you can't farm milk in Ashes, it's simple.

Whenever someone sees you trying to do it, they warn you not to do it, and if you do it they kill you.

Then they just ignore the penalty (if they all agreed to this, no one will kill any Red players on your Freehold for example, this is unrealistic but I feel like you get the point).

Is it fair? Reasonable? No, we make those decisions differently.

What about not paying taxes? If you decide you're not paying them, do your allies get to vote you out of Node Citizenship? Is that okay? What about if you can't afford to pay your taxes because you keep farming milk when no one in the area needs it and the nearest other Node is a huge Dairy Farm collective and your milk is always more expensive?

Surely you should be allowed to raise cows and get milk on your own land, but should you also be allowed to not pay the taxes? And what does this have to do with literally anything we were talking about? See, we were talking about people choosing not to farm anything at all.

Do you have an opinion on what should happen to Freeholds when the owner can't pay the taxes?

can they kill you in your freehold? they arent your allies anymore. do you see where I'm going now, how your own logic makes no sense. i literally just used your own logic against you and you refuted it to a point.

killing a player is not the same as voting to take away their freehold or voting (through an ingame system) that you cant do a certain activity in your freehold.

also, you might not always win the PVP if you are the attacker.

afaik taxes are payed automatically when you spend money in a node...cant have a choice on that, other than not spending the money and going somewhere else.

As far as we know, you are only safe in your house.

You can be attacked while attempting to get your milk from your cow.

I will hope that you can't actually be stopped during the animation since you can't be CCed during it.

I'll address the rest too, but I just want to make sure we're both clear on this point, that if a group of people (presumably a larger group, otherwise we don't care how they vote, right? They'd lose the vote) shows up to your Freehold to decide that you don't get to milk your cows that night, until you 'bring more people' (to the point where you would win the vote) or 'exceed their violence' (with or without more people) you don't get to milk your cow.

I don't care if it's the same, I just want to make sure you understand what I'm saying.

you know what the difference is?

we have to fight and the winner wont be decided on a vote. it will be decided based on competence. if you want me to not get my milk tonight, you have to spend time getting people, possibly from another node, get gear, learn how to pvp, e coordinated, etc and I have to do the same in order for me to push back. there are also consequences for doing such things.

on the other hand, what you suggest (or I think you are suggesting) is some kind of voting interface where we can decide what other players will do in their freehold. they will be forced to do that we consider best or they wont play the game. they wont even have a chance to defend themselves. sounds like cancel culture to me tbh.

I didn't suggest that but I can see how you would have taken it that way.

Depraved

Azherae wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

CROW3 wrote: »

Good thoughts, @Azherae - as usual.

I’m wondering if between citizenship requirements, one freehold per account limits, and the up front cost of a freehold - There are enough constraints such that you would need a very well organized guild to take land speculation to a problematic level at scale.

I think individual realtors/speculators will paint themselves into a corner relatively quickly. They would either find themselves without a Freehold (with lots of capital), or with a Freehold they cling to and won’t sell.

Totally agree on the land grabbing; it’s a zero sum game, with advantages to guilds dominating a node.

Of course, the real lever in this equation is that all of those players pay the same sub. So, I think there’s some longer term revenue advantages for Intrepid to throwing the FFXIV crowd a really robust set of aesthetic options for those instanced apartments.

I believe that the land speculation can be avoided while retaining (rather, by increasing) the limits, and that the price that will be paid is 'denial of this content to a very large portion of the playerbase' which is the thing I have the problem with.

And as you know, this is not a personal problem. If it reaches the point where it is a 'personal problem' for my very tight knit family who are basically all 'definitely not casuals' then I have no condolence I can even offer to any other.

I just believe that 'repossessing someone's cool Trophy or functional furniture' is cleaner.

If your house is empty, why should the Node/State 'let you keep it' in a game like Ashes anyway? It's unrealistic. The Node Citizens would vote to have it taken from you.

I really really don't want to go all the way down to explaining how land's ability to produce is the only real value and the societal structures built up around it that we take for granted. It would become politics.

coughcommunismcough. so if you have 100 bucks nd you arent hungry, is it ok for me and my friend to beat u up and take your $100 so that we can eat? don't think so eh.

if I wanna buy land not build anything and just look at the grass, that's my right. its my money, my land, I do whatever I want with it. maybe I just wanna have a picnic with my girl or friends.

of course ahses has the war mechanics and all that, and its in the server best interest to have land producing something. that means your enemies will try to take it from you. its ridiculous that the same citizens who live in your area can vote and take it from you because they don't like what you do with your plot. i mean node allegiance suprseeds every other faction...

You're the sort of person that I need to write the book for.

Like, definitionally.

The people who decided it was 'not ok' to beat someone else up and take their $100 are the same people who decided what a '$100' was.

It is your land until someone takes it. It is your money until someone takes it. Do you know why you get to claim otherwise without being laughed at and then skewered on a pike?



Or as my friend says:

You know who doesn't agree with you...?

THE MONGOLS.

its still not ok. so vikings pillaging villages was ok?

why does it matter who decide what money was? do you think we were better before than now?

before money:

I can only produce apples. i want pears. you produce pears and you don't want apples, you want a horse. so now I have to try and trade with 549567675 until I can get something that can be traded for a horse. by the time I come back to you with the horse, your pears are spoiled its also harder to assign a value to things.

with money: I sell my apples to whoever is interested. they voluntarily buy them. nowi can go to you and buy pears, then you can use the money to buy a horse.

why not remove gold from mmorpg?

also, still evil for me to beat u up and take your money. otherwise, why do we have laws?

Wait you think we have laws because doing illegal things is evil? I take it you either aren't an American or don't study their history much whether you are or are not (this is still not politics, right? Someone call me out if it is).

Also you can remove gold from MMORPGs, that would be the entire point of the book. Not saying you should but that you can and that it is important to understand how and why you can that leads to understanding how to design MMORPG economies.

Some humans agreed at some point that it was okay for some people (without an army, no less) to buy potentially profitable land and do nothing beneficial with it.

If you want to design a fantasy MMO economy you have to start from the very bottom or mimic someone else's design or you will introduce holes that will quickly remind us why human behaviour is based on those agreements that we all take for granted.

Otherwise you will create a system that no bulk group of humans would be willing to live under, and they will not play your game with the goal of experiencing an economy.

laws describe what pattern of behavior is prohibited and tell you how you will be punished if you engage in that pattern of behavior. what is considered evil by a group, might not be considered evil by another group, however, we can agree that certain things are universally wrong. beating you up to take your things instead of me working hard to get them, is one of those things.

also, by your own logic. if there are 5 freeholds in your area that do metal processing, and you buy a freehold and you want to do metal processing, then you shouldn't be allowed. people should be able to vote and decide that hey we have too much metal processing and you should do wood processing or skin processing. in fact lets also vote and change 3 of those metal processing stations into other things.

Actually a bunch of people literally don't agree on that.

Some people believe that taxation is theft, but the government will 'beat you up' if you don't pay the taxes, and some people believe that the very concept of property is theft because it will always be taken to the extreme of 'X uses their claim to property, to deny access to some other resource'.

There are hundreds of laws worldwide about this, complex ones too.

You can try to extend my logic like that and I won't complain because in the end, trying to reduce this topic to simplicity is itself the 'wrong'. Now we're definitely at 'politics', whereas I prefer to just discuss economic things in the view of MMORPGs, so please proceed with any further interpretation you have of my position, and I'll probably concede it regardless of what it is.

Go big, it's fine.

you are still not getting it T_T

Yeah don't worry about it, I'm like a crazy anarchist anthropologist who looks too deep into the abyss of human nature and all that.

I'll never get it, I'm blind to the Truth from staring into said Abyss for too long.

I think there are cookies down there though.

while trying to be sarcastic, you are actually stating a reality. you refuse to learn the truth.

I choose to be beyond both 'reality' and 'truth' as we normally discuss them once we hit 'morality as a whole', yes.

Completely agreed. Back to MMO Economics then.

Please feel free to further discuss your truth as it pertains to MMO economics, where I can contain my incredible arrogance and urge to act like a know-it-all down to the level where I feel it is reasonable to actually engage.

I believe we were at the idea that once someone buys a Freehold, they should not lose it without... let me check...

"Successful destructive violence aimed at their government."

EDIT: Sieging my Node should be illegal.

in MMO economics, its not good that your allies can vote to control what you do with your land. I'm going to vote so that you cant farm milk and instead you become a fisherman

Ah but no one said that. Also your allies can always vote that you can't farm milk in Ashes, it's simple.

Whenever someone sees you trying to do it, they warn you not to do it, and if you do it they kill you.

Then they just ignore the penalty (if they all agreed to this, no one will kill any Red players on your Freehold for example, this is unrealistic but I feel like you get the point).

Is it fair? Reasonable? No, we make those decisions differently.

What about not paying taxes? If you decide you're not paying them, do your allies get to vote you out of Node Citizenship? Is that okay? What about if you can't afford to pay your taxes because you keep farming milk when no one in the area needs it and the nearest other Node is a huge Dairy Farm collective and your milk is always more expensive?

Surely you should be allowed to raise cows and get milk on your own land, but should you also be allowed to not pay the taxes? And what does this have to do with literally anything we were talking about? See, we were talking about people choosing not to farm anything at all.

Do you have an opinion on what should happen to Freeholds when the owner can't pay the taxes?

can they kill you in your freehold? they arent your allies anymore. do you see where I'm going now, how your own logic makes no sense. i literally just used your own logic against you and you refuted it to a point.

killing a player is not the same as voting to take away their freehold or voting (through an ingame system) that you cant do a certain activity in your freehold.

also, you might not always win the PVP if you are the attacker.

afaik taxes are payed automatically when you spend money in a node...cant have a choice on that, other than not spending the money and going somewhere else.

As far as we know, you are only safe in your house.

You can be attacked while attempting to get your milk from your cow.

I will hope that you can't actually be stopped during the animation since you can't be CCed during it.

I'll address the rest too, but I just want to make sure we're both clear on this point, that if a group of people (presumably a larger group, otherwise we don't care how they vote, right? They'd lose the vote) shows up to your Freehold to decide that you don't get to milk your cows that night, until you 'bring more people' (to the point where you would win the vote) or 'exceed their violence' (with or without more people) you don't get to milk your cow.

I don't care if it's the same, I just want to make sure you understand what I'm saying.

you know what the difference is?

we have to fight and the winner wont be decided on a vote. it will be decided based on competence. if you want me to not get my milk tonight, you have to spend time getting people, possibly from another node, get gear, learn how to pvp, e coordinated, etc and I have to do the same in order for me to push back. there are also consequences for doing such things.

on the other hand, what you suggest (or I think you are suggesting) is some kind of voting interface where we can decide what other players will do in their freehold. they will be forced to do that we consider best or they wont play the game. they wont even have a chance to defend themselves. sounds like cancel culture to me tbh.

I didn't suggest that but I can see how you would have taken it that way.

what is your suggestion then? how will people vote?
pvping isn't voting. the outcome is based on competence, not selecting yes or no on a survey

Azherae

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

CROW3 wrote: »

Good thoughts, @Azherae - as usual.

I’m wondering if between citizenship requirements, one freehold per account limits, and the up front cost of a freehold - There are enough constraints such that you would need a very well organized guild to take land speculation to a problematic level at scale.

I think individual realtors/speculators will paint themselves into a corner relatively quickly. They would either find themselves without a Freehold (with lots of capital), or with a Freehold they cling to and won’t sell.

Totally agree on the land grabbing; it’s a zero sum game, with advantages to guilds dominating a node.

Of course, the real lever in this equation is that all of those players pay the same sub. So, I think there’s some longer term revenue advantages for Intrepid to throwing the FFXIV crowd a really robust set of aesthetic options for those instanced apartments.

I believe that the land speculation can be avoided while retaining (rather, by increasing) the limits, and that the price that will be paid is 'denial of this content to a very large portion of the playerbase' which is the thing I have the problem with.

And as you know, this is not a personal problem. If it reaches the point where it is a 'personal problem' for my very tight knit family who are basically all 'definitely not casuals' then I have no condolence I can even offer to any other.

I just believe that 'repossessing someone's cool Trophy or functional furniture' is cleaner.

If your house is empty, why should the Node/State 'let you keep it' in a game like Ashes anyway? It's unrealistic. The Node Citizens would vote to have it taken from you.

I really really don't want to go all the way down to explaining how land's ability to produce is the only real value and the societal structures built up around it that we take for granted. It would become politics.

coughcommunismcough. so if you have 100 bucks nd you arent hungry, is it ok for me and my friend to beat u up and take your $100 so that we can eat? don't think so eh.

if I wanna buy land not build anything and just look at the grass, that's my right. its my money, my land, I do whatever I want with it. maybe I just wanna have a picnic with my girl or friends.

of course ahses has the war mechanics and all that, and its in the server best interest to have land producing something. that means your enemies will try to take it from you. its ridiculous that the same citizens who live in your area can vote and take it from you because they don't like what you do with your plot. i mean node allegiance suprseeds every other faction...

You're the sort of person that I need to write the book for.

Like, definitionally.

The people who decided it was 'not ok' to beat someone else up and take their $100 are the same people who decided what a '$100' was.

It is your land until someone takes it. It is your money until someone takes it. Do you know why you get to claim otherwise without being laughed at and then skewered on a pike?



Or as my friend says:

You know who doesn't agree with you...?

THE MONGOLS.

its still not ok. so vikings pillaging villages was ok?

why does it matter who decide what money was? do you think we were better before than now?

before money:

I can only produce apples. i want pears. you produce pears and you don't want apples, you want a horse. so now I have to try and trade with 549567675 until I can get something that can be traded for a horse. by the time I come back to you with the horse, your pears are spoiled its also harder to assign a value to things.

with money: I sell my apples to whoever is interested. they voluntarily buy them. nowi can go to you and buy pears, then you can use the money to buy a horse.

why not remove gold from mmorpg?

also, still evil for me to beat u up and take your money. otherwise, why do we have laws?

Wait you think we have laws because doing illegal things is evil? I take it you either aren't an American or don't study their history much whether you are or are not (this is still not politics, right? Someone call me out if it is).

Also you can remove gold from MMORPGs, that would be the entire point of the book. Not saying you should but that you can and that it is important to understand how and why you can that leads to understanding how to design MMORPG economies.

Some humans agreed at some point that it was okay for some people (without an army, no less) to buy potentially profitable land and do nothing beneficial with it.

If you want to design a fantasy MMO economy you have to start from the very bottom or mimic someone else's design or you will introduce holes that will quickly remind us why human behaviour is based on those agreements that we all take for granted.

Otherwise you will create a system that no bulk group of humans would be willing to live under, and they will not play your game with the goal of experiencing an economy.

laws describe what pattern of behavior is prohibited and tell you how you will be punished if you engage in that pattern of behavior. what is considered evil by a group, might not be considered evil by another group, however, we can agree that certain things are universally wrong. beating you up to take your things instead of me working hard to get them, is one of those things.

also, by your own logic. if there are 5 freeholds in your area that do metal processing, and you buy a freehold and you want to do metal processing, then you shouldn't be allowed. people should be able to vote and decide that hey we have too much metal processing and you should do wood processing or skin processing. in fact lets also vote and change 3 of those metal processing stations into other things.

Actually a bunch of people literally don't agree on that.

Some people believe that taxation is theft, but the government will 'beat you up' if you don't pay the taxes, and some people believe that the very concept of property is theft because it will always be taken to the extreme of 'X uses their claim to property, to deny access to some other resource'.

There are hundreds of laws worldwide about this, complex ones too.

You can try to extend my logic like that and I won't complain because in the end, trying to reduce this topic to simplicity is itself the 'wrong'. Now we're definitely at 'politics', whereas I prefer to just discuss economic things in the view of MMORPGs, so please proceed with any further interpretation you have of my position, and I'll probably concede it regardless of what it is.

Go big, it's fine.

you are still not getting it T_T

Yeah don't worry about it, I'm like a crazy anarchist anthropologist who looks too deep into the abyss of human nature and all that.

I'll never get it, I'm blind to the Truth from staring into said Abyss for too long.

I think there are cookies down there though.

while trying to be sarcastic, you are actually stating a reality. you refuse to learn the truth.

I choose to be beyond both 'reality' and 'truth' as we normally discuss them once we hit 'morality as a whole', yes.

Completely agreed. Back to MMO Economics then.

Please feel free to further discuss your truth as it pertains to MMO economics, where I can contain my incredible arrogance and urge to act like a know-it-all down to the level where I feel it is reasonable to actually engage.

I believe we were at the idea that once someone buys a Freehold, they should not lose it without... let me check...

"Successful destructive violence aimed at their government."

EDIT: Sieging my Node should be illegal.

in MMO economics, its not good that your allies can vote to control what you do with your land. I'm going to vote so that you cant farm milk and instead you become a fisherman

Ah but no one said that. Also your allies can always vote that you can't farm milk in Ashes, it's simple.

Whenever someone sees you trying to do it, they warn you not to do it, and if you do it they kill you.

Then they just ignore the penalty (if they all agreed to this, no one will kill any Red players on your Freehold for example, this is unrealistic but I feel like you get the point).

Is it fair? Reasonable? No, we make those decisions differently.

What about not paying taxes? If you decide you're not paying them, do your allies get to vote you out of Node Citizenship? Is that okay? What about if you can't afford to pay your taxes because you keep farming milk when no one in the area needs it and the nearest other Node is a huge Dairy Farm collective and your milk is always more expensive?

Surely you should be allowed to raise cows and get milk on your own land, but should you also be allowed to not pay the taxes? And what does this have to do with literally anything we were talking about? See, we were talking about people choosing not to farm anything at all.

Do you have an opinion on what should happen to Freeholds when the owner can't pay the taxes?

can they kill you in your freehold? they arent your allies anymore. do you see where I'm going now, how your own logic makes no sense. i literally just used your own logic against you and you refuted it to a point.

killing a player is not the same as voting to take away their freehold or voting (through an ingame system) that you cant do a certain activity in your freehold.

also, you might not always win the PVP if you are the attacker.

afaik taxes are payed automatically when you spend money in a node...cant have a choice on that, other than not spending the money and going somewhere else.

As far as we know, you are only safe in your house.

You can be attacked while attempting to get your milk from your cow.

I will hope that you can't actually be stopped during the animation since you can't be CCed during it.

I'll address the rest too, but I just want to make sure we're both clear on this point, that if a group of people (presumably a larger group, otherwise we don't care how they vote, right? They'd lose the vote) shows up to your Freehold to decide that you don't get to milk your cows that night, until you 'bring more people' (to the point where you would win the vote) or 'exceed their violence' (with or without more people) you don't get to milk your cow.

I don't care if it's the same, I just want to make sure you understand what I'm saying.

you know what the difference is?

we have to fight and the winner wont be decided on a vote. it will be decided based on competence. if you want me to not get my milk tonight, you have to spend time getting people, possibly from another node, get gear, learn how to pvp, e coordinated, etc and I have to do the same in order for me to push back. there are also consequences for doing such things.

on the other hand, what you suggest (or I think you are suggesting) is some kind of voting interface where we can decide what other players will do in their freehold. they will be forced to do that we consider best or they wont play the game. they wont even have a chance to defend themselves. sounds like cancel culture to me tbh.

I didn't suggest that but I can see how you would have taken it that way.

what is your suggestion then? how will people vote?
pvping isn't voting. the outcome is based on competence, not selecting yes or no on a survey

EDIT: Ok got it, I see where this happened.

At the beginning I said that it would be unrealistic for land to remain idle because your Node Citizens would vote to take it from you.

In this case 'vote' can be replaced with:

"Hire someone to run you out of the Node."
"Get on their alts and kill you."
"Figure out if the Mayor of a different Node can make you an Enemy of the State of that Node so you can be attacked freely."

So in the hypothetical situation where you 'leave land idle and do nothing for the Node', the game should have a system for letting those who dislike your actions to take action of their own. Currently, the system might unrealistically block that or make it lots of effort.

The voting part isn't important. The important part is that if you choose to do nothing with the land, your fellow Citizens might not be able to do anything about it, and this is unrealistic because it is the game enforcing one part of the social contract and not the other part.

We good now? I'd be fine with 'Citizens of the Node getting together to agree to tell the Mayor of the node to designate you as Enemy of the State so that they can come kill you every time you try to milk your cows'. ( I don't know if a Mayor can do this)

But this is a loophole that doesn't apply to 'a player that owns a Freehold but never goes to it'. So my point is that there are consequences that the game systems protect players from, and choosing which ones is important. I don't think that protecting the Freehold Owner from 'everyone else wanting them gone' is bad. But I think that there should also be some protection from 'allowing the Freehold Owner to do a thing that everyone would kick them out of the Node for'.

And all this was a big tangent from 'Wanting to be able to do something about realtors'. We good now? I'm glad to offer my services to any Node that wants to run some shmuck off their Homestead.

But realistically, the 'government' would handle this.

Again the 'vote' thing was definitely my bad, we went in a political direction and danced around it unnecessarily. You can choose any option you like best that parallels to 'voting'. If 'literally killing someone repeatedly' > 'cancel culture' for you, have at it.

Depraved

well, in a competitive game, you have to COMPETE against other players for what you want. that can be whoever reaches the rare flower that spawns once a week first gets it, or not enough freehold so you have to take it from someone else. however, everybody has an opportunity to fight back. whoever is the most competent will win.

clicking yes or no on a menu that pops up is wrong because the other person cant even fight back. its like kicking your tank or healer right before the raid boss dies so that they don't get any loot since they were a random recruit for the activity.

but ill wait for you to come up with a "fair voting system"

Azherae

Depraved wrote: »

well, in a competitive game, you have to COMPETE against other players for what you want. that can be whoever reaches the rare flower that spawns once a week first gets it, or not enough freehold so you have to take it from someone else. however, everybody has an opportunity to fight back. whoever is the most competent will win.

clicking yes or no on a menu that pops up is wrong because the other person cant even fight back. its like kicking your tank or healer right before the raid boss dies so that they don't get any loot since they were a random recruit for the activity.

but ill wait for you to come up with a "fair voting system"

Alright, sounds like we are good.

Democracy is one way. Might (competence) makes right is another way.

I'll just remind you that one of the biggest problems here is that 'opportunity to fight back' in a 1 v 7 situation for example isn't really much better. Whenever the numbers change, the vote would have changed too, but I suppose in a PvX MMO 'having to put up with people voting for something you don't want instead of just fighting them' isn't what some people want.

Depraved

exactly, numbers influence voting. numbers influence pvp but u can still win vs the larger group.

JamesSunderland

Depraved wrote: »

well, in a competitive game, you have to COMPETE against other players for what you want. that can be whoever reaches the rare flower that spawns once a week first gets it, or not enough freehold so you have to take it from someone else. however, everybody has an opportunity to fight back. whoever is the most competent will win.

clicking yes or no on a menu that pops up is wrong because the other person cant even fight back. its like kicking your tank or healer right before the raid boss dies so that they don't get any loot since they were a random recruit for the activity.

but ill wait for you to come up with a "fair voting system"

Reject Democracy, Embrace Kratocracy. (not political btw )