Sort the greifing rule out

[Guest MrConor]

The way I see it is there is simply no way to prove intent. What one would consider griefing, another would see as simply reaping the benefits of an easy catch, taken by means of in this case bashing down fences.

This is a very important point, and one problem I've personally been up against (as an admin in a totally unrelated game). You cannot legislate on intent because then you're back at "moderating by sole opinion".

You know, smashing down a farm that is obviously in use is greifing if they know they are stealing from the owner of the farm.

[Artashes 0]

The fact is we only have two (premium) game servers at the moment, Freedom and Wild, so to my mind, they should be clearly polarised - Wild is clearly the "anything goes" server, and, to a certain extent, the reverse should be true on Freedom - anything negatively impacting another player should be frowned upon.

Game mechanics can never cover every conceivable scenario: there's a fundamental difference (to my mind) between breaking into the pen of a player who has quit, been gone 3 months, but their animal pens are still standing and jam packed with animals, and breaking into the pen of a player who's standing there, repairing it and telling you not to. These two cases are clearcut, but then we can move them a little closer, and a little closer, until they become blurred. It would do no good to make more and more coding changes to cover all the different scenarios (e.g. you can break a fence only if it's over 10% damaged, has not been repaired for 1 month etc), because there will always be exceptions.

Also, I strongly believe players are on Freedom because, by and large, they subscribe to a moral code. I'd rather not see game mechanics limit what they can do, but that they themselves do so, based on their own free will and judgement of what is right or wrong, and suffer punishment or censure if the community afterwards judges their actions to fall outside what is considered "reasonable".

All of this leads me to the conclusion that the current system is fundamentally broken. I would prefer to see a return to the system that used to exist in the past, of either/both of outlawry or GM action against griefers (including sending them to wild or banning them) based on the judgement of the GMs as to what the rights and wrongs (and intents) of actions were, as long as such decisions are not based on sole opinion, but are arrived at in a collegiate manner, than to keep the status quo.

Some will argue that such a system is impractical, and cannot survive if Wurm is to grow, but my argument against that would be: when we have more game servers, you can support more game styles, and limit GM interference on more servers, but at present, while there are only two, you have to consider the sizeable proportion of the playerbase who play Wurm in a non-confrontational manner.

Only those who want to push the boundaries of the rules would have much, if anything, to fear from such a system.

[As_I_Decay 1,592]

I agree with Artashes, 110%. I couldn't have said it better.

[EliasTheCrimson 348]

You know, smashing down a farm that is obviously in use is greifing if they know they are stealing from the owner of the farm.

It's not black and white. Refer to the second paragraph of Artashes' post above.

Whatever reason each individual may have for playing this game, be it the enjoyment of social interaction or just plainly watching numbers increase, it is none of your business to question or trivialize.

Okay, but this is a multiplayer game. Those definitions have to collide at some point, and when people start whining about it and pointing fingers, it really brings that perspective into question.

Yes, Wurm is multiplayer indeed, but it's still supposed to be a somewhat structured game experience and not a massive pure online sandbox.

[Evilmist 80]

I like the idea of a punishment to be sent to Wild if found guilty.

definitly +1000000

[Guest MrConor]

You know, smashing down a farm that is obviously in use is greifing if they know they are stealing from the owner of the farm.

It's not black and white. Refer to the second paragraph of Artashes' post above.

I mean the actual black and white events.

In the case of Aether, Museum and such. They actively do it to ruin other players playing experience then brag about it on Kchat.

It's just stupidity to even let them brag about this in public. It should be that that sort of player is the one that is punished.

[Chuck 62]

I want the Moral choice to be able to kill on a home server again and deal with going outlaw. This way we CAN get payback. If they want to bash fences let them bash that 70QL stone wall with their corpse in it. We should be allowed to deal with some of these problems ourselves. I am not talking about Freedom gone Wild, just basic things we used to be able to do on the home server.

[Guest ironizedphoenix]

To be fair, a lot of people did KoS them after that incident, and Aether met with an unfortunate accident.  So even if the rules are not set out so people have to try and use whatever morality they have, that option is there for us.  Unfortunately it currently requires the person to have done something and the community to all put them on KoS/embargo lists etc, rather than a straight "these are the rules of freedom, break them and you will have something more severe done than just being banned from going anywhere near half the deeds on freedom".

And MontBlanc, i do not know how many deeds currently have aether and the rest of those people on KoS, but it probably is most of the people that were on that night, and subsequent nights...

[Montblanc 7]

In the case of Aether, Museum and such. They actively do it to ruin other players playing experience then brag about it on Kchat.

Do you have actual proof of this, or are you just being horribly biased?

[Guest Gobo9k]

@ the OP, the rules are ambiguous. Even the statement about "acts of vandalism" is open to interpretation.

No deed, no control. If you choose to build something off deed you must also be willing to accept that another will likely destroy/alter it.

Since land is a valuable resource we can't let player run around and claim stuff for nothing. Afterward, complain that what they made has been griefed.

If you can't afford a deed, maybe you should be complaining that deed prices should be reduced. It seems to me if deed prices where truly cheep all these off-deed grief incidents would just expand or deed the affected area. Here is an idea...all premium accounts come with a free 7x7 deed (size3, 0 additional perimeter, 0 guards) and monthly maintenance is also included. Heck this seem like a good use for those kings wealth funds we have been arguing about in the past.

Honestly if we stick to the no-deed, no control rules their is almost no need for GMs. Deeds have guaranteed control. Anything short of a server hack will not violate that control.

[Annette 53]

You do all realise that Rolf wants us to fill his pockets with buying deeds and covering any area we would like to use for anything dont you?

He will not change the rules as he wants us to pay more to play.

We have a wild server on freedom so to speak.  the only difference is that we are unable to attack and kill the people responsible for doing the damage.

I know how I will protect my areas and it wont be with more deeds.  It will be by utilising the high skills I have and it will not be easy for someone to remove what I place.

[Guest MrConor]

land is a valuable resource.

Woah, straight up agrarian right there.

The value of land depends on it's usage. Plus the map is full of useless unused land.

If you gave everybody on freedom the same amount of land, they would each get about 106 tiles.

[Jenuv 0]

You do all realise that Rolf wants us to fill his pockets with buying deeds and covering any area we would like to use for anything dont you?

He will not change the rules as he wants us to pay more to play.

We have a wild server on freedom so to speak.  the only difference is that we are unable to attack and kill the people responsible for doing the damage.

I know how I will protect my areas and it wont be with more deeds.  It will be by utilising the high skills I have and it will not be easy for someone to remove what I place.

Rolf allows you to support wurm and have a nice little spot that is actually YOURS. Still, dont complain if something happens to land you do not own.

As for that new player deed idea, just let it be part of a payment option. And not available to existing prems.

[Guest MrConor]

Bring in more free players, more free players will buy premium, make deeds cheaper, more people buy deeds, encouraged to buy other players items if cheaper, those makers of goods can afford more deeds, more people encouraged to buy premium if things are good, everybody wins minus the old players who have competition.

[Paul Scott 0]

make deeds cheaper

Already done to an extreme. A person can easily double the size of a deed they had before the update and still pay less monthly than they were previously. People who couldn't afford a deed to begin with now can purchase one and pay the monthly upkeep with minimal effort. Not going to comment further as commenting on a MrConor post is about equivalent to arguing with a brick wall, but had to point that out.

[Guest MrConor]

make deeds cheaper

Already done to an extreme. A person can easily double the size of a deed they had before the update and still pay less monthly than they were previously. People who couldn't afford a deed to begin with now can purchase one and pay the monthly upkeep with minimal effort. Not going to comment further as commenting on a MrConor post is about equivalent to arguing with a brick wall, but had to point that out.

You didn't quote it all, but reducing taxes will increase spending in other areas of the game.

[Paul Scott 0]

make deeds cheaper

Already done to an extreme. A person can easily double the size of a deed they had before the update and still pay less monthly than they were previously. People who couldn't afford a deed to begin with now can purchase one and pay the monthly upkeep with minimal effort. Not going to comment further as commenting on a MrConor post is about equivalent to arguing with a brick wall, but had to point that out.

You didn't quote it all, but reducing taxes will increase spending in other areas of the game.

I didn't need to. My point was that what you're suggesting has already been done above and beyond what was called for. You are simply asking for everything to be handed to you on a silver platter at this point. The plummeting prices on many player-made goods have pushed some people out of the market. Not a good example for Freedom, but on Wild many people have stopped offering fletching services altogether because of the massive amount of time invested in improving a quiver and the rock bottom prices people have been offering. What, exactly, do you want people to spend more money on? Your idea ignores how poor high quality casts have been since the religion fix, so people won't be spending money on enchants since the good ones are less available and cost more. Do you want people to buy the moneysink items Rolf added? The enchanted chest that stops decay didn't work when added and afaik has yet to be properly fixed. Sure, people can buy tools and the like, but most in decently sized villages are simply given adequate gear for contributing. Your model is too simplistic to be applied in a practical manner.

[Corrax 19]

+1 Artashes.

That outlaw status sound good.

[Guest MrConor]

The plummeting prices on many player-made goods have pushed some people out of the market.

I have yet to see this.

Also there are many things to buy that you have ignored.

Ships, livestock, weapons, armour, digging services, raw materials, etc.

[Paul Scott 0]

The plummeting prices on many player-made goods have pushed some people out of the market.

I have yet to see this.

Also there are many things to buy that you have ignored.

Ships, livestock, weapons, armour, digging services, raw materials, etc.

Continue to nit-pick all you want. I am bored with this conversation. Good day sir.

[Jenuv 0]

The problem is that demand is very low for pretty much anything.

But take that to another thread, this isn't about freedom economics (well, some of is actually)

[Guest Gobo9k]

make deeds cheaper

Already done to an extreme. A person can easily double the size of a deed they had before the update and still pay less monthly than they were previously. People who couldn't afford a deed to begin with now can purchase one and pay the monthly upkeep with minimal effort. Not going to comment further as commenting on a MrConor post is about equivalent to arguing with a brick wall, but had to point that out.

lol, really? For the sake of this statement I'll pretend like AOC and the non-plant zone had zero value.

Before the update:

5HS is 5s buy, 1.5s maintain. This deed gives a 11x11 area and 1 guard. An additional 5 tile AOC and 45 tiles of no-deed-plant zone.

After the update:

5HS, 0 add-perimeter, 1 guard is 4.4s buy and 1.24s maintain.

10HS,0 additional perimeter, 1 guard is 10.8s buy and 1.8s maintain.

under this unrealistic comparison the size 5HS is a little cheaper. The double the size scenario is not paying less.

You can't just single out deed tiles while forgetting about AOC and the old no-deed-perimeter.

if we factor in AOC as giving deed like control by denying others access to tiles they would otherwise be able to manipulate your statements are completely debunked. What about the 45 tiles no-plant zone that is essentially the same as 45 additional perimeter tiles?

I can see how some villages think they are getting more and paying less. Again this group is ignoring the benefits of AOC and no-plant zone. I'm not going to bother with math proof here.

If we look at the server graphs it becomes apparent that the wrong group was rewarded when the pricing model was created.

Currently the situation is 420 deeds and 886 premium players. This indicates that the majority of players want to either go solo or be in a small group. The favorable treatment that the larger villages received does not meet the needs of the players.

I also believe that Rolf's choice to squeeze deeds closer together was a result of coming to the conclusion that big villages aren't going to happen on freedom. He needed to make sure profit goals could be met and with lots of small deeds the only way was to increase deed concentration.

solution...remove the 1s minimum maintenance cost, make the smallest deed be a size1(3x3 area), slightly increase maintenance costs, remove the concept of upfront buy costs all-together. Maybe charge first and last months maintenance up-font.

[EliasTheCrimson 348]

You can't just single out deed tiles while forgetting about AOC and the old no-deed-perimeter.

if we factor in AOC as giving deed like control by denying others access to tiles they would otherwise be able to manipulate your statements are completely debunked.

AoC was bullsh!t and the extremely unbalanced cost-vs-reward was one of the reasons it was removed so quickly. AoC was something that never should have existed, because it is not reasonable for a single player to be granted control/ownership over 12-15000 tiles for the cost of the smallest deeds. It makes no sense to include it in calculations.

[Wulfgar 1,132]

I agree 100% with what Artashes wrote.

Also I think that deed prices are extremely reasonable as they are now, and doesn't need to be changed.

Neither does perimeter.

If we want free players on Freedom, why can't they set up somewhere undeeded for a while before they buy a deed?

And they should be protected against griefers.

[Aether 0]

You know, smashing down a farm that is obviously in use is greifing if they know they are stealing from the owner of the farm.

It's not black and white. Refer to the second paragraph of Artashes' post above.

I mean the actual black and white events.

In the case of Aether, Museum and such. They actively do it to ruin other players playing experience then brag about it on Kchat.

It's just stupidity to even let them brag about this in public. It should be that that sort of player is the one that is punished.

Excuse me? Black and white events? How would you even know what other people's intentions are. Have you even been reading the thread properly? By all means keep your fingers in your ears singing the same song, but that won't change facts.