Something that really burns my butt

@Phydra
The problem I have here is that in a multiplayer world balancing "playstyles" is not really what's happening here.

I have a playstyle where I enjoy pvp and roleplaying. To have this, I need as many scenes as possible to have 1. PVP and 2. ways to interact with other players. If multiplayer becomes a place where 1. PVP is 100% consensual (which it is) and 2. the only way I can interact with other players is by talking to them in a chat room inwhich I can be put on /ignore (which it is). Then it's NOT really multiplayer, and my playstyle is being eroded away over and over again.

Meanwhile, there's an ENTIRE gaming mode that supports the type of playstyle in the OP - single player online mode.

 

Problem not understood.

I am all the time in multiplayer and there are so many areas I am gathering so lonely. No one else in the whole szene. Most of the current areas are instance anyways.
If there are other players, fine then we can either venture together.
If they want my resources, fine than we compete for the resources.
If they start to get annoying, fine I look for another area or another instance.
And even then, we can leave multiplayer and join friends-only.

 

Because agriculture currently doesn't contain the high level mats and even if they ever do, it will not be in the same quantity as a high level adventure zone.

 

The opportunity for resource stealing to promote pvp may have been there in uo, before trammel because there was nowhere else to go, but in shroud, most of it if not all is occuring between pve only players.

Be honest, how many opportunities for pvp have come up from resource stealing for you in Shroud? Zero. If 2 pvp flagged people see eachother in mpo, they don't need a reason to attack eachother. One is going to gank the other while he's fighting mobs simply because the opportunity presented itself.

This is a bigger issue for PvE folks than it ever will be for pvp flagged players.

 

Having a persistent world has nothing to do with multiplayer. You can (and do) have a persistent world in single player online mode.

I know it's hard for some people to read what I'm saying without jumping to the conclusion that I'm some kind of a griefing pk that needs "people" to satisfy my gaming experiences, but that is not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that if you're not allowing players to perform all sorts of behaviors, some of which you might find objectionable, you're not really in a sandbox multiplayer world. You're in a world like Toon Town, where you only have a limited number of choices and none of them can or will impact other players in a meaningful way.

I'm saying that if you desire MEANINGFUL interaction between players (as I do) then you have to accept that bad things might happen and other players might be jerks. It's like in Game of Thrones when Ned tells Bran "you have to be scared before you can be brave". You can't have meaningful interaction if you're not willing to allow yourself to have senseless interaction.

That's what I want from my multiplayer experience, I want the ability to know the difference between the two because both are possible.

 

Lol @ fighting another player over a tree in a forest.

 

You didn't see the keep Lot of nothing but cotton this past release? There was a whole player event based upon it.

 

I'm not suggesting it's a PVP issue....the way the game is designed, PVP is 100% consensual. I was saying that the reason I live in a PVP town is so that I can remove the problem and take care of it myself. But the rest of the non-pvp world that I live in by default should not be so watered down that it becomes Toon Town (see above).

PVE should not mean the absence of players doing good and bad things to each other. What's next, should we outlaw price gouging?

 

Points for the Eddard quote, but you know I'm right when I say, unless you're in a very scripted rppvp environment there doesn't need to be a reason to pvp another pvp flagged person.

It's not as if you're going to voluntarily ignore another flagged player to wait and see if he steals your cotton bush so you can retaliate with extreme prejudice. Lol

 

Pretty sure cotton in a high level zone spawns more often than every 3 days. But cotton aside, this would also be for wood, ore, leather, and other resources NOT associated with agriculture. Cotton is one small part of resource gathering.

 

Well said. In other words, it's illogical.

Furthermore, it's impractical as the behavior of players in other games, that have done the same sort of thing, demonstrates.

 

Have people fight over important stuff, where it makes sense... not over who can cut down a random tree in a forest... that's all I'm saying.

Beyond that, for meaningful PvP, things like control points should matter.

How often I run into players depends on the server population. It happens more often when the release has just been put out and you get a big spike in the population, then less often as the population dies down.

 

So let's explore this. Perhaps if you're a single PvE, then locked nodes with a decay timer or distance check might work. Once you start harvesting, the timer kicks in. If you get engaged by a MOB, you have until that timer to dispatch it and maintain ownership. If that timer goes off then you lose ownership. Or, if you move within some distance away, perhaps the distance (or 2x) you would double-click the resource to harvest it, you lose ownership. If you die from the MOB, you immediately lose ownership regardless of decay timer or distance check. You can only maintain one node for ownership at any one time. If you're in a party, the entire party is governed by this same timer and distance check for that node (per party member). As long as the timer has not gone off and at least one of you are alive within the distance check, then your party maintains ownership of that node.

If you're single or party PvP, there is no ownership or such decay timer or distance check.

 

Yes, you're right about that. I don't think I'm being naive about what's going to happen on a daily basis in Rats Nest, for example.

But I'm not looking for a scripted environment, I'm looking for interaction that is explicitly not scripted in fact.

 

It is, but none the less one that was affected in the market due to oversaturation from a mechanic everyone embraces for the most part.

My point is, instancing doesn't necessarily mean it would instantly over saturate the market. Mechanics can be adjusted for balancing purposes. Even limiting it to two unique, successful harvests, would for the most part eliminate resource stealing.

 

And with that being said, the true to Shroud life impact this would have is ultra minimal.

 

I'm not sure what this means.

I think that instead of trying to sterilize the multiplayer environment from players freely interacting with each other, we should be looking instead to make that interaction more meaningful. Instead of removing the ability to steal resources from other players, I think we should promote it so that there are clear winners and losers.

 

that thread title
could've had fun in this thread.

seems easy though.

 

That's the difference in most of our disagreements is that I would promote the fun for everyone that is playing through fairness and opportunity for all.

Youd promote it only for those who are wiling to resort to any means necessary to improve their own station, including actions at the expense of other players or the "losers", as you put it.

It's always been your position, but this isn't bartertown.

 

Considering that you will eventually (supposedly) be able to control who gets the share your world and that most resource nodes (at least ore) happen to already exist in dungeon-type environments (read: instance), I don't see that as much of a problem.

Welcome to a multi-player environment. Was he/she rude? Yes. Is he/she the only one at fault? No. That player took the resource fair and square. You expecting him/her to act in a particular way (that favors your beliefs) is the reason why you're so upset.

Let me ask you this: Did you even try to communicate that you were looking to cut the tree? A simple: "I want tree" is quick enough to type. Standing near the node, isn't as "obvious" as you might think.

 

Right, it's not bartertown, and it shouldn't be bartertown. What I think you may not understand is that I'm not advocating for bartertown. I'm strongly supportive of the 100% consensual pvp environment. But what you're talking about is pushing PVE into a fully blown chat room that also happens to have resource gathering.

It sounds like a reasonable request to players that don't want any type of competitive or negative interaction with other players, but in the process it KILLS that interaction for those that want it. Meanwhile, there's a single player online mode that allows for this already. My feeling is that if you want multiplayer world access there's a certain amount of interaction with multiple players that you have to allow for. It's not bartertown to suggest that the existence of resource in a persistent world will be limited. It's just like having limited housing...some people will get the housing and some people will not.