"Mis-Land Management" - Solutions to preventing Extinction level events

We have not received permission from Okeydoke to share the quoted post.

And I hope that a lot, if not most, gatherers are like that. I just saw a parallel between Dygz' dissatisfaction with the open seas change and the potential issues that gatherers might have with land management.

I'm not trying to say that everyone is the same. It's just that, from what I've seen/heard so far, quite a lot of people dislike systems that prevent them from playing how they want to play. And while there's obviously those who prefer that (me included), I feel like they're more of a minority within their group.

Just like a lot of people like to say (justifiably so sometimes) that most owpvpers just want to kill weaker players instead of having equal pvp, even though from my experience that is not the case.

We have not received permission from Dygz to share the quoted post.

But if I want to level up my node and do stuff inside of its ZOI to help my node and the land management system prevents that - I can't do what I want to do. I'd assume you wouldn't want to explore seas all the time, but when you do - you can't cause it'll autoflag you.

While yes, the seas are a permanent thing so, in theory, you can never go there because it would always flag you, but I'd imagine that relatively speaking there's a chance that the amount of explorable stuff in the sea would take even less time than any future LMSed overharvested lands.

Open seas imply no connections to nodes, which means that their dynamism is way lower, if there is even any. So, theoretically, there's only a few places that you could explore there and they won't change in the future (unless expansions). But LMS will be influencing stuff as long as players farm lands. And as that UO video says, players will always be locusts. And Intrepid would have to balance the LMS against that.

We have not received permission from Dygz to share the quoted post.

True, but if it's a fraction of owpvpers against thousands of pvers - how many of those pvers would get killed often? But a ton of pvers complain about the system as a whole just because THERE'S A CHANCE! And quite often they say seem to imply that this chance is almost always 100%.

But they seem to forget that raiders quite often don't have their preferred content (Noaani not included cause EQ2 had hundreds of raids for him to constantly farm), not even talking about AoC's open worldness of bosses. PvPers also have preferences that include time-limited content, so they have to do smth else in the mean time (for me it's sieges).

In other words, almost every type of player spends some amount of their time not doing their preferred gameplay. So why should gatherers be an exception to that rule? Dying once or twice every several hours is but a tiny fraction of the overall gameplay, while sieges would only happen once every few weeks (unless you participate in each node siege and start them yourself) and top raids will have long respawns and in Ashes they'll be contested too.

And even then! As you said yourself, the gatherer can usually just move to another location and avoid their potential attacker, while raids and sieges might just not be happening for some time so other types of players will literally have nowhere to go to enjoy their preferred content.

tl;dr everyone will have times where they can't enjoy their preferred content, including gatherers.

We have not received permission from Dygz to share the quoted post.

And I'm talking about the bigger picture. One PKer might kill 5-10 people during a short period of time. Even if he doesn't get caught immediately (hope he does because that'd mean that BH system is working), he'll start getting hit with bigger and bigger corruption values which increases the chances of him getting caught or at the very least shooed off from that location.

Even if we assume that all those kills were against different people, that's still just a fraction of citizens of one node. Unless each node has several such PKers who somehow manage to kill 5-10 people every day, while also removing their PK count so that they can repeat this forever - the amount of gatherers impacted by non-consensual PvP is negligible.

And when we consider that those victims can move to another location and that Steven promised to balance the system in such a way that PKers can't in fact keep killing dozens of players daily - we have even fewer death at the hands of PKers.

In other words, at the bigger scale of the game the impact on most gatherers will be miniscule, if there even will be one.

We have not received permission from Dygz to share the quoted post.

But the only thing that non-consensual PvP impacts is that preferred content. You don't want to play the game because forced pvp prevents you from enjoying your preferred content. Some gatherers want pve servers because they want to enjoy their preferred content in peace. Same applies to all the raiders who want to have more instanced content or those same pve servers - they all want owpvp to have no impact on them when they're partaking in their preferred content.

Which brings us to the LMS. If there is a way for other players to influence people's preferred content, and especially if they can completely prevent it - to me that seems like the same thing as non-consensual pvp. Now, you disagree with me that this is even a possibility within LMS, but I don't think we have any details either way, so it's hard to know who of us will be correct. The same applies to open seas. I'm not sure that open seas will be as dynamic as nodes, but you seem to think otherwise. I'd like to be wrong on both, because to me that seems like a better design.