Mencken

Cooperative Play Setting, Everyone Has Individual Bases

56 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

Seriously!  This is just _one server_ doing this, as an experiment.  It's not like the game as a WHOLE has been changed to this new system!  If you don't want to play that way then just, maybe...don't...go...to that _one_...server?  Like, there are thousands of others?  THERE'S an idea!

I mean, I totally get not liking/approving of somebody else's playstyle, but when it's just ONE tiny little corner of a big huge thing; does it _really_ hurt or even affect you at all if they do that?  _Really_?

I myself have the "March of Civilization" server in which for each year, I'm only allowed to build/use certain things.  When people outside the challenge showed up, they were like, "Cool!" after I explained what I was doing, or wandered off to play their own way instead. Absolutely NOBODY told me "You shouldn't be doing this, it's wrong, it's against the spirit of the game, blah blah blah".  Because they recognised that _they could go somewhere ELSE_.

If ONE server decides to play a different way, that's nothing.  The only time you should be worrying about big changes in overall gameplay style is if KLEI does it to the OFFICIAL game.  That.  Is it.  No other occasion is worthy of rants, lectures or scolding.  Again, if you don't like how they're doing things on one server..just don't go to that one server.  Each server is its own little kingdom with its own rules.  And that's the BEAUTY of it!

Having said that...the bed-and-breakfast idea sounds kind of adorable.  I like the idea of the seperate bases having different services/goods they offer, that gives each one its own flavour or reputation.  Like:  "Okay, if you go way far up the road to the north, you'll see Player One's camp--he's the one to go to if you need minerals, and will take grass or fruit/veggies in payment.  If you go east until you see the Queen Beehive then go south until you hit the frog ponds, nearby is Player Two's camp.  They run a bed-and-breakfast, and will take anything useful you have but prefer gold or silk.  Over to the west, near the beefalo savannah, you'll find Player Three's camp.  She specialises in cave gear but wants payment in cave-only materials, and last but not least to the south you'll find Player Four. Who is happy to trade for whatever, as long as what you're giving in return is also useful."

That's kinda cool.  It's like the big huge map is divided into its own little countries or whatever!  Adds a whole new dynamic.  I like it!

...Notorious

Edited by CaptainChaotica
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

12 hours ago, Mencken said:

Everyone has a different concept of what ideal is and you clearly have one.   I'm not sure what you mean by the "lore wise" comment, more information would be helpful.

This isn't restrictive, you actually have far more freedom than you do in a group base because you don't have to ask permission to use resources and our experience has been that even when playing with experienced players that resources are consumed sometimes without notification, it also creates stress between the players, "where is the silk?", "why did you kill the geckos?", "don't plant too much grass", "you're using too much stone" etc. etc.

 

By restrictive I mean that you can't use whatever and wherever someone else's base has been made and in the case of being chased by shadows or hounds or something while you were not prepared and lost your last piece of armour, getting to the nearest base to quickly boost yourself with armour and weapons and whatnot is essential for survival.

I don't ask permission to use anything unless it's a rare resource. Stacks of silk and I see we need sewing kits? I make them. Someone asks where it all went, I tell them, I don't feel sorry pressured, what's done is done and was necessary.

With everything being shared, I can use anything without having to go through trading and asking for dumb permissions. I ask only if I see that the resource is rare, we have a few of it and if someone else has some good plans for it (e.g. gears). If not, then I use it for what seems like the best use of it for all of us or if that's not on my priorities, I use it for myself.

In comparison, if there are multiple bases around the world, I can come in, take stuff and use them for myself and others, put stuff away etc. Where as in your model, all I can use is what I build, everything else is where I'm essentially not welcome or are not allowed to give, take or contribute anything to building, or at leas the latter two. That is high restriction in my books, and it's simply logically so too.

One time, your model was adapted by someone on a public server, and on the forums there was a controvercial problem with that they tried to push away a player who was in need of urgent help just because they went through their chests (which is understandable considering their condition) and the player even put on a spider hat to kill the one who needed help, which in turn led the one in need of help to burn down their base from anger. Nor I nor anyone else can find the thread, but if it hasn't been removed, it's out there. This kind of crap happens not only on DST but also, ofc, irl due to the way capitalism and private property functions. This is why, unless you're screwing the whole property thing in an emergency, it will be a horror fest. And even then, restriction is applied as opposed to access.

On another note, what do you do if a player takes all of the thulecite in the world and refuses to trade it for ANYTHING? Do you keep hay with it and reset ruins every 20 days, only to grind for the little amount of thulecite fragments you'll get from broken clockworks? Or do you screw the whole neat system you have built in order to keep resources afloat for other players too?

Edited by EuedeAdodooedoe
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, isthisworkingnow said:

This is an amazing idea and I would be interested in seeing how it will develop- I just wish I had people to play it with.

I have a few questions:

Do you 'hire' players? e.g Hiring a Wicker to use their books.

How are the transactions made? 

Do you have a currency? If you do- what is it and what prevents one player from mass producing it and becoming rich while de-valuing it?

Thanks.   The universal currency is gears but we also barter a lot using grass, wood, stone, silk, and other materials.   The "currencies" have a floating value (just like real markets) depending on supply and demand.   Yes, we hire players for missions, for grunt work like harvesting stones, wood, etc., and (for rich players) as personal assistants.    Probably the highest pay goes to contract killers for things like the queen bee, dragonfly and ancient guardian (still out there).   Missions may include getting rarer items.   The world is the next to largest size so there is PLENTY of space, there are only 4 bases right now, two are active, one is semi-active and the last is falling into ruin.  

 

I love the endless model and when you think about it why regenerate the world?   It is regenerating all the time with bases being abandoned, etc.    It is also interesting from a historical perspective, you stumble upon an ancient base with four skeletons (all belonging to the same person).   You can see that it was a work in construction but with sophisticated elements which tells you that it wasn't the original owner who died 4 times but a new player who was struggling just to stay alive.    Think of the start of the world as year 0, and you're part of the history.   Hmm, one more idea I just got, add signs to active bases and defunct ones which will tell new players which ones (if any) they are allowed to use.

 

The whole system is slowly becoming formalized, one player came up with a new idea, trading chests.   So, one chest is empty (to put in your stuff) and the other is full (to take out what you bartered/paid for).   

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It sounds very much as a server you need to be in when it starts at day one, because otherwise you'll be stuck doing work for someone else until you can build your own settlement where you can live comfortable.. Another thing, how do you decide who gets that one Deerclops eyeball? Or any other Giant drop for that matter.. 

I personally think this is asking for bosses and 'slaves' so to speak (Reminds me a little of my past playing Rust), it doesn't really scream 'Together!' for me and therefore I'm not very interested. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

This kind of game play happened "naturally" over the course of time in one public server called "strictly unprofessional endless" which is (or was?) a server that was never restarted for like 8k days or so, so essentially there were a ton of bases around, and ruins of old abandoned bases that were destroyed by natural causes, griefed, etc. Looting was common too.

It was very survival-ish as the world kept evolving over the course of time, if you left for a few real life days, several years went by in the world, and upon your return everything was changed again: your base was either looted or taken over by a new player and expanded. Some areas were inaccessible due to being infested with millions of spiders, others were severely overpopulated by beefalos, and trading excess items with other bases was pretty common.
It feels like the natural evolution of this game after you've existed into a world with strangers for a long time, is to establish a trading system.
 

Edited by ShadowDuelist
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Kittydub said:

how do you decide who gets that one Deerclops eyeball? Or any other Giant drop for that matter.. 

In a group where people do not care, or do not know about it, whoever grabs the thing first typically takes it away and is never questioned on it. Otherwise, the Dice Roll function is a fantastic tool for deciding who receives things.

Although, for logic sake, the WX of the group deserves to have it the most either way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, EuedeAdodooedoe said:

By restrictive I mean that you can't use whatever and wherever someone else's base has been made and in the case of being chased by shadows or hounds or something while you were not prepared and lost your last piece of armour, getting to the nearest base to quickly boost yourself with armour and weapons and whatnot is essential for survival.

I don't ask permission to use anything unless it's a rare resource. Stacks of silk and I see we need sewing kits? I make them. Someone asks where it all went, I tell them, I don't feel sorry pressured, what's done is done and was necessary.

With everything being shared, I can use anything without having to go through trading and asking for dumb permissions. I ask only if I see that the resource is rare, we have a few of it and if someone else has some good plans for it (e.g. gears). If not, then I use it for what seems like the best use of it for all of us or if that's not on my priorities, I use it for myself.

In comparison, if there are multiple bases around the world, I can come in, take stuff and use them for myself and others, put stuff away etc. Where as in your model, all I can use is what I build, everything else is where I'm essentially not welcome or are not allowed to give, take or contribute anything to building, or at leas the latter two. That is high restriction in my books, and it's simply logically so too.

One time, your model was adapted by someone on a public server, and on the forums there was a controvercial problem with that they tried to push away a player who was in need of urgent help just because they went through their chests (which is understandable considering their condition) and the player even put on a spider hat to kill the one who needed help, which in turn led the one in need of help to burn down their base from anger. Nor I nor anyone else can find the thread, but if it hasn't been removed, it's out there. This kind of crap happens not only on DST but also, ofc, irl due to the way capitalism and private property functions. This is why, unless you're screwing the whole property thing in an emergency, it will be a horror fest. And even then, restriction is applied as opposed to access.

On another note, what do you do if a player takes all of the thulecite in the world and refuses to trade it for ANYTHING? Do you keep hay with it and reset ruins every 20 days, only to grind for the little amount of thulecite fragments you'll get from broken clockworks? Or do you screw the whole neat system you have built in order to keep resources afloat for other players too?

1,  Obviously if you are near death you can go to a base to recuperate but you're expected to reimburse the owner and also not take anything beyond what is immediately needed.   You have to be mindful that the supplies you are taking out may also be required by the person on there.  I'd also point out that in communal bases taking stuff and not replacing is making others work for you.   We had players who helped themselves to the best items, died frequently, redesigned the base (bad design, caused problems) and it made slaves out of those who worked diligently to keep everything well stocked.

2.  "with everything being shared..."    You're deciding what is best for the team and not leaving it up to the individual members.   Can't tell you how many times I've seen fights starts, bases get burned and players kicked.   

3.  Is isn't restrictive, as a matter of fact is is wonderful for new players because they can obtain stuff like hibernation vests and dragon scale simply by bartering for it, they would never be able to do so otherwise.

4.  Interesting that you get political (reference to capitalism).   In a public server there is much less law and order, it is more like anarchy, not capitalism.   Also, there have been plenty of burned bases where resources were shared, this happens because you get griefers and looters/adventurers   My server is private and this model is working beautifully, no base has ever been purposely destroyed and if you accidentally (through careless action) destroy a base you're expected to make up for it and it isn't cheap.

5.  "takes all the thulecite in the world"    Fascinating comment and this is why DST is an excellent platform to model socio-economic systems.    In the real world seizing an entire resource is impossible and even if it were it backfires because if you make something too expensive people find alternatives.   Now, on to thulecite.    Do you really think a player is going to harvest all of it and then do nothing?   That makes no sense whatsoever, they could use it purchase things they need.   Sitting around on a base with the entire worlds stock of one item would be really, really boring.   Suppose the person did that.   People would use log armor and other types like scale armor instead and that player would lose interest fast.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Sounds fun. Just wish I had more opportunities to join servers like these.

Edited by Cyberboy2000
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Cheetos said:

I don't personally see what the fuss is about, that definitely sounds like a fun alternative playstyle to me. Every public server is entitled to enforce its own rulesets, and many do. Is there a postings of the rules along with a link to the discord?

We haven't posted any rules yet, it would be very limited in scope because the idea is to give players the maximum freedom to enjoy the game.   I guess if you asked me on the spot the rule would be that you only use established bases in emergencies (and replace whatever you took, which should be a bare minimum) and that you respect the resources around other bases (don't burn down the forests, kill all the beefalos, wipe out spider nests without replacing, etc.).   I was guilty of the latter case and the base owner was rightfully not happy about it so I compensated him for it and promised not to do it again, didn't really matter though because i had established my own nests.

 

Some bases are building hotels with food, tents, a fireplace and some basic services, you stay for the night and pay the going rate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Cyberboy2000 said:

Sounds fun. Just wish I had more opportunities to join bases like these.

You do, we have openings.   One player has left (it appears) and the second may be leaving soon.    New people are great, the only caveat being that if we get a troublemaker they will be kicked out and the world rolled back (the only time we do that, I've had my base destroyed 4 times by deerklops (first winter) and bearger who has a nasty habit of spawning near it.   But its all rebuilt and hasn't been hit in quite a while :).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Kittydub said:

It sounds very much as a server you need to be in when it starts at day one, because otherwise you'll be stuck doing work for someone else until you can build your own settlement where you can live comfortable.. Another thing, how do you decide who gets that one Deerclops eyeball? Or any other Giant drop for that matter.. 

I personally think this is asking for bosses and 'slaves' so to speak (Reminds me a little of my past playing Rust), it doesn't really scream 'Together!' for me and therefore I'm not very interested. 

Not true.    Having resources you can buy means that you can start your own base faster, and there is no "boss/slave" model.    Very nice people on here as well (we give stuff away too).   Giant drops?   You have to remember that the more established players have a lot of what they need, you want a Deerclops eyeball?   Buy one, or kill one, its yours.   If it is a rare/harder item then you can team up, who decides?   It isn't as hard as you think, we are going on a joint mission and the person who really wants the item can have it, the other is compensated with goods or in a future cooperative mission.  The beauty of this system is you never have to worry about your items being stolen and because of that people aren't as possessive about rare stuff, they have plenty of time in a relaxed setting to obtain whatever they need.

On public servers you have to carry all your good stuff around.   WX-78 is often despised because he eats gears and I've seen this player booted many a time.   In our world there was some competition for gears but everyone had enough to build their bases as one player cannot possibly seize the entire supply (remember the tumbleweeds).

 

It is together, but it is a voluntary together not a compulsive one where your time can be spent working for others.   Cooperative bases to me are more like slave/boss relationships in the sense that a few players are needed almost full time to keep the base stocked while the others go out and have fun.   

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, ShadowDuelist said:

This kind of game play happened "naturally" over the course of time in one public server called "strictly unprofessional endless" which is (or was?) a server that was never restarted for like 8k days or so, so essentially there were a ton of bases around, and ruins of old abandoned bases that were destroyed by natural causes, griefed, etc. Looting was common too.

It was very survival-ish as the world kept evolving over the course of time, if you left for a few real life days, several years went by in the world, and upon your return everything was changed again: your base was either looted or taken over by a new player and expanded. Some areas were inaccessible due to being infested with millions of spiders, others were severely overpopulated by beefalos, and trading excess items with other bases was pretty common.
It feels like the natural evolution of this game after you've existed into a world with strangers for a long time, is to establish a trading system.
 

Yep, one of the tougher elements of this is establishing a law and order system in a cooperative world setting and the best I've come up with so far is if people loot/burn/pillage they either may be warned or expelled and the world rolled back (the only reason why we would ever do a rollback).     Otherwise you could just have trolls coming in and destroying everything in two days, that is why I created a private server.   

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, CaptainChaotica said:

Seriously!  This is just _one server_ doing this, as an experiment.  It's not like the game as a WHOLE has been changed to this new system!  If you don't want to play that way then just, maybe...don't...go...to that _one_...server?  Like, there are thousands of others?  THERE'S an idea!

I mean, I totally get not liking/approving of somebody else's playstyle, but when it's just ONE tiny little corner of a big huge thing; does it _really_ hurt or even affect you at all if they do that?  _Really_?

I myself have the "March of Civilization" server in which for each year, I'm only allowed to build/use certain things.  When people outside the challenge showed up, they were like, "Cool!" after I explained what I was doing, or wandered off to play their own way instead. Absolutely NOBODY told me "You shouldn't be doing this, it's wrong, it's against the spirit of the game, blah blah blah".  Because they recognised that _they could go somewhere ELSE_.

If ONE server decides to play a different way, that's nothing.  The only time you should be worrying about big changes in overall gameplay style is if KLEI does it to the OFFICIAL game.  That.  Is it.  No other occasion is worthy of rants, lectures or scolding.  Again, if you don't like how they're doing things on one server..just don't go to that one server.  Each server is its own little kingdom with its own rules.  And that's the BEAUTY of it!

Having said that...the bed-and-breakfast idea sounds kind of adorable.  I like the idea of the seperate bases having different services/goods they offer, that gives each one its own flavour or reputation.  Like:  "Okay, if you go way far up the road to the north, you'll see Player One's camp--he's the one to go to if you need minerals, and will take grass or fruit/veggies in payment.  If you go east until you see the Queen Beehive then go south until you hit the frog ponds, nearby is Player Two's camp.  They run a bed-and-breakfast, and will take anything useful you have but prefer gold or silk.  Over to the west, near the beefalo savannah, you'll find Player Three's camp.  She specialises in cave gear but wants payment in cave-only materials, and last but not least to the south you'll find Player Four. Who is happy to trade for whatever, as long as what you're giving in return is also useful."

That's kinda cool.  It's like the big huge map is divided into its own little countries or whatever!  Adds a whole new dynamic.  I like it!

...Notorious

Great comments!   It is like having little countries and there is so much room in a very large world.   Also, people rotate out of the game and their bases slowly get absorbed by nature, it is like watching a futuristic dystopia tv show.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/13/2017 at 10:45 AM, EuedeAdodooedoe said:

That's if they're all newbies who don't really care to put in the effort to try and get into the game.

This isn't an ideal way to play the game nor is it the intention lore wise. The main idea, which is also a lot less restrictive is just sharing what you have and using what you need. In the case of rare resources, best for the players who come in regularly. I've had more hassle with the whole trading thing than sharing quite honestly. Everyone providing for themselves and everyone else simply means I don't have to waste away time to get something specific for the other player. What if what they have is what I need, but I've nothing they want or nothing at all? Better to just take what you need from chests, with consideration of others and ask for resources to players in case they have some without any pointless trading and giving stuff to others in need if you can afford it as well.

That's how most players play instinctively this game and it works much more simply and efficiently as well as being less restrictive.

If you want everything to go perfectly your way, playing single player or DST on your own is your best bet, or as you're doing right now, a private server. But please don't force this overly restrictive trading and ownership concept to public servers.

One more comment, was thinking about your resource question.   We are near 700 days and haven't experienced it at all, so I think it isn't something to be worried about.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

2 hours ago, Mencken said:

1,  Obviously if you are near death you can go to a base to recuperate but you're expected to reimburse the owner and also not take anything beyond what is immediately needed.   You have to be mindful that the supplies you are taking out may also be required by the person on there.  I'd also point out that in communal bases taking stuff and not replacing is making others work for you.   We had players who helped themselves to the best items, died frequently, redesigned the base (bad design, caused problems) and it made slaves out of those who worked diligently to keep everything well stocked.

2.  "with everything being shared..."    You're deciding what is best for the team and not leaving it up to the individual members.   Can't tell you how many times I've seen fights starts, bases get burned and players kicked.   

3.  Is isn't restrictive, as a matter of fact is is wonderful for new players because they can obtain stuff like hibernation vests and dragon scale simply by bartering for it, they would never be able to do so otherwise.

4.  Interesting that you get political (reference to capitalism).   In a public server there is much less law and order, it is more like anarchy, not capitalism.   Also, there have been plenty of burned bases where resources were shared, this happens because you get griefers and looters/adventurers   My server is private and this model is working beautifully, no base has ever been purposely destroyed and if you accidentally (through careless action) destroy a base you're expected to make up for it and it isn't cheap.

5.  "takes all the thulecite in the world"    Fascinating comment and this is why DST is an excellent platform to model socio-economic systems.    In the real world seizing an entire resource is impossible and even if it were it backfires because if you make something too expensive people find alternatives.   Now, on to thulecite.    Do you really think a player is going to harvest all of it and then do nothing?   That makes no sense whatsoever, they could use it purchase things they need.   Sitting around on a base with the entire worlds stock of one item would be really, really boring.   Suppose the person did that.   People would use log armor and other types like scale armor instead and that player would lose interest fast.

1) k

2) Bullcrap! I think and I let others think too, instead of me deciding for everyone literally everything. There's this thing called consensus and reason on important decisions.

3) Simply by bartering? I can simply, take that if we have spares of it, not go on a long journey to find something the other player would want for it to get one of that thing I really want (e.g. scales). And, simply going on an adventure with them to share what we have based on what we need works well too. If you're playing on a private server, there really is no point for any bartering rubbish to exist.

4) I'd argue about Anarchy all-day-long in terms of its definition, what it actually means blahblahblah, but in terms of the structure of servers... No, it most definitely isn't an anarchy. Not even on some of the PvP servers in the context you're thinking of. You have admins and the host, creating a hierarchy who decide what they want for their server and whom to ban/kick, what to spawn in/what commands to use when and so forth.

5) What? So, by your terms it's just fine if a player keeps all the thulecite to them, swims in thulecite crowns and other things that require thulecite, while everyone else has to use basic stuff, never ever to get a chance at some of the ancient things (that require thulecite), even if they prove themselves worthy of effectively utilising that stuff, just because one person took it all. In terms of reality... You do seem to be a little delusioned in the context of choice in relation to capitalism. Let me tell you that in the nature of capitalism, people don't simply trade what they think is worth or what they want the most... You instead have people wanting to get more for giving less and that is how it often works.

And yeah, a person will take and keep as much as they can even if they don't ever use it for anything. What do you think the top 1% is doing with their wealth? Either nothing or investing to get more wealth to not do anything with.

Edited by EuedeAdodooedoe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

54 minutes ago, EuedeAdodooedoe said:

1) k

2) Bullcrap! I think and I let others think too, instead of me deciding for everyone literally everything. There's this thing called consensus and reason on important decisions.

3) Simply by bartering? I can simply, take that if we have spares of it, not go on a long journey to find something the other player would want for it to get one of that thing I really want (e.g. scales). And, simply going on an adventure with them to share what we have based on what we need works well too. If you're playing on a private server, there really is no point for any bartering rubbish to exist.

4) I'd argue about Anarchy all-day-long in terms of its definition, what it actually means blahblahblah, but in terms of the structure of servers... No, it most definitely isn't an anarchy. Not even on some of the PvP servers in the context you're thinking of. You have admins and the host, creating a hierarchy who decide what they want for their server and whom to ban/kick, what to spawn in/what commands to use when and so forth.

5) What? So, by your terms it's just fine if a player keeps all the thulecite to them, swims in thulecite crowns and other things that require thulecite, while everyone else has to use basic stuff, never ever to get a chance at some of the ancient things (that require thulecite), even if they prove themselves worthy of effectively utilising that stuff, just because one person took it all. In terms of reality... You do seem to be a little delusioned in the context of choice in relation to capitalism. Let me tell you that in the nature of capitalism, people don't simply trade what they think is worth or what they want the most... You instead have people wanting to get more for giving less and that is how it often works.

And yeah, a person will take and keep as much as they can even if they don't ever use it for anything. What do you think the top 1% is doing with their wealth? Either nothing or investing to get more wealth to not do anything with.

5.  What you're forgetting is that simply doesn't happen.   OPEC tried to corner the oil market and ended up defeating themselves as the high prices lead to new production methods.   Capitalism (free trade) is two people doing a transaction in which both are satisfied with the outcome, otherwise why trade?   

The 1% (which is a meaningless artificial construct) do better in anti-capitalist markets because they benefit from cronyism.   In a free economic system you are much more vulnerable because competition is intense.  Also, the top 1% create millions of jobs and they provide the capital for loans (your credit card, your home loan, etc.)  But, we are straying away from the game here into politics, the point was to use the game as a model.

2.  Decisions made by committee is not innovative because there is no singular vision.   Imagine a book or a work of art designed by a committee, it would be a horrible mishmash.  It is also very time consuming and unproductive.  Also, under this form of government individual concerns are ignored, it is majority vote.  You have no rights, your player is owned by the group in a de facto sense.

 

I have over 20 gears in the game (WX-78) what if a player takes them all based on his/her "needs"?    What if I die afterwards and it takes me 80 days to get all those back?    No player would ever hoard thulecite either, that makes no sense at all.  

 

Edited by Mencken
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

This sounds amazing!! People looking for the wrong side of your server style and arguing against it are sad.

Keep it up, it would be nice to see screenshots of the different bases! I'd love to play this way some day (is DST multiplayer lag already fixed?), the idea of being lonely but still having some neighbours and barting must feel great!!

Edited by mochilo
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mencken said:

5.  What you're forgetting is that simply doesn't happen.   OPEC tried to corner the oil market and ended up defeating themselves as the high prices lead to new production methods.   Capitalism (free trade) is two people doing a transaction in which both are satisfied with the outcome, otherwise why trade?   

The 1% (which is a meaningless artificial construct) do better in anti-capitalist markets because they benefit from cronyism.   In a free economic system you are much more vulnerable because competition is intense.  Also, the top 1% create millions of jobs and they provide the capital for loans (your credit card, your home loan, etc.)  But, we are straying away from the game here into politics, the point was to use the game as a model.

2.  Decisions made by committee is not innovative because there is no singular vision.   Imagine a book or a work of art designed by a committee, it would be a horrible mishmash.  It is also very time consuming and unproductive.  Also, under this form of government individual concerns are ignored, it is majority vote.  You have no rights, your player is owned by the group in a de facto sense.

 

I have over 20 gears in the game (WX-78) what if a player takes them all based on his/her "needs"?    What if I die afterwards and it takes me 80 days to get all those back?    No player would ever hoard thulecite either, that makes no sense at all.  

 

Wanna take this to the PM, bruh, come at me bruh, I'll show you the reality in the PM, bruuuuuh >:[ (jk)

In terms of gears, you're not specifying what you mean by "needs". Your definition of "needs" in whatever context you're picturing could be anything. I can't give you a concrete answer unless you're more specific. But based on how well I can interpret it, taking all the gears  for say just gobbling them all up right away for max stats as a newbie WX player and hence showing no concern for others would just be asshatry.

I would like to reply to the rest, but yeah, it's best taken to the PM if you want to discuss this further.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mencken said:

No player would ever hoard thulecite either, that makes no sense at all.

Seeing how much Thulecite there is in the ruins (and atrium) and it's uses, I can say that it makes perfect sense. A player could keep ALL the Thulecite in the world and use it to make Thulecite suits, Thulecite crowns, and considering they have it all to themselves, they'll make things like the lazy forager and pick/axe just for the convinience. In your system it's completely fair to hoard all the Thulecite since that puts you in a position higher than other players and you aren't forced to trade with anyone as all other resources in the game can be obtained through multiple means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've lived in a few group houses and been involved in a few alternative-style organizations in my time. In my experience, the more invested someone is in the idea that we should all just share everything without creating any structure to make things fair is the person who takes the most and contributes the least. Also, it's usually the person who thinks they are always right and refuses to listened to anyone else.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

34 minutes ago, Rellimarual said:

I've lived in a few group houses and been involved in a few alternative-style organizations in my time. In my experience, the more invested someone is in the idea that we should all just share everything without creating any structure to make things fair is the person who takes the most and contributes the least. Also, it's usually the person who thinks they are always right and refuses to listened to anyone else.

If this is to say that I'm that sort of a player, I'm not. In fact, I grind a lot fro others. the other day, I went out of my way to get a bunch of nitre while mining rocks just so an inexperienced player could get some booster shots. Neither do I think that I'm always right, I'm not stupid and I don't have some odd ego that you might think I have. Any proper examples of this actually happening in the game though?

On ‎14‎/‎03‎/‎2017 at 9:19 AM, CaptainChaotica said:

Seriously!  This is just _one server_ doing this, as an experiment.  It's not like the game as a WHOLE has been changed to this new system!  If you don't want to play that way then just, maybe...don't...go...to that _one_...server?  Like, there are thousands of others?  THERE'S an idea!

I mean, I totally get not liking/approving of somebody else's playstyle, but when it's just ONE tiny little corner of a big huge thing; does it _really_ hurt or even affect you at all if they do that?  _Really_?

I myself have the "March of Civilization" server in which for each year, I'm only allowed to build/use certain things.  When people outside the challenge showed up, they were like, "Cool!" after I explained what I was doing, or wandered off to play their own way instead. Absolutely NOBODY told me "You shouldn't be doing this, it's wrong, it's against the spirit of the game, blah blah blah".  Because they recognised that _they could go somewhere ELSE_.

If ONE server decides to play a different way, that's nothing.  The only time you should be worrying about big changes in overall gameplay style is if KLEI does it to the OFFICIAL game.  That.  Is it.  No other occasion is worthy of rants, lectures or scolding.  Again, if you don't like how they're doing things on one server..just don't go to that one server.  Each server is its own little kingdom with its own rules.  And that's the BEAUTY of it!

Having said that...the bed-and-breakfast idea sounds kind of adorable.  I like the idea of the seperate bases having different services/goods they offer, that gives each one its own flavour or reputation.  Like:  "Okay, if you go way far up the road to the north, you'll see Player One's camp--he's the one to go to if you need minerals, and will take grass or fruit/veggies in payment.  If you go east until you see the Queen Beehive then go south until you hit the frog ponds, nearby is Player Two's camp.  They run a bed-and-breakfast, and will take anything useful you have but prefer gold or silk.  Over to the west, near the beefalo savannah, you'll find Player Three's camp.  She specialises in cave gear but wants payment in cave-only materials, and last but not least to the south you'll find Player Four. Who is happy to trade for whatever, as long as what you're giving in return is also useful."

That's kinda cool.  It's like the big huge map is divided into its own little countries or whatever!  Adds a whole new dynamic.  I like it!

...Notorious

My real problem would be if it's done public and not specified in the description and/or the title of the server. You showing up, playing for a bit, only to find out that the general gameplay is different from typical AND enforced, well, then that is a bit of a problem, isn't it? I'm not targeting the server itself, I'm saying that it's not a good idea to have this publicly, especially without specification IF someone decided "hey, I love this model and wanna apply it everywhere". No, please don't do that, it's truly unnatural. The sharing model is instinctively adapted by many, however.

Edited by EuedeAdodooedoe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no idea how you play. My remarks were more addressed to the real-world extrapolation that was going on above. 

In terms of in-game experience, as long as I'm playing with people I know, then a shared base is fine because we generally agree on what our priorities are. However, it's also true that I've collaborated on bases where newcomers waste resources and take valuable items without asking, mostly because they are just derping around, but sometimes because they think they are helping. They can do stuff like knocking down all the pig houses when the base is near the PK, or mining the decorative boulder we're keeping in the base as a landscaping feature. Webbers plant spider nests too close to the base or in some corner and then leave and suddenly there are queens everywhere. They start wasting stone on building walls or put farms where we wanted to put drying racks. I wouldn't join a base that was already somewhat developed without asking and I certainly wouldn't make significant alterations to it without asking because the person who has already invested the most time in it may have something else they plan to do. What looks like a surplus of a particular resource might be a stash that someone has collected for a specific purpose. I ask about this sometimes even when playing with people I've been collaborating with for a while because they haven't necessarily always told me what they have in mind. Then we can discuss what seems most important to do next. This just seems like good manners and good planning to me.

At any rate, what @Mencken has set up sounds like a fun, creative and interesting experiment in how to play the game. It is an open-form game. There is no one "right" way to play it, and if the players on his server are enjoying it, then why not? Maybe it adds a fun challenge. Personally, I'd never play a PvP game, but if people want to do it, I'm not going to argue with them about how it's wrong. No one's forcing me to do it. To each his own.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no such thing as "Bad, Wrong, Fun" play how you like! I am glad it's working out for the people involved, that should make any reasonable person happy I think.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

12 hours ago, Electroely said:

Seeing how much Thulecite there is in the ruins (and atrium) and it's uses, I can say that it makes perfect sense. A player could keep ALL the Thulecite in the world and use it to make Thulecite suits, Thulecite crowns, and considering they have it all to themselves, they'll make things like the lazy forager and pick/axe just for the convinience. In your system it's completely fair to hoard all the Thulecite since that puts you in a position higher than other players and you aren't forced to trade with anyone as all other resources in the game can be obtained through multiple means.

It seems the solution would be to have ruins be reset periodically, so that it's not even possible for one person to hoard all the thulecite. Actually, regrowth in general seems to be very important for this type of world.

Edited by Cyberboy2000
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now