Splinter Topic: Motivation - Opportunity vs Necessity

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

Things are worse than I thought

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

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.

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

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?

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.