Topic

SUGGESTED RULES FOR PLANTING

Edit: so the tree huggers everywhere took the title as an offense. I don't want to feel like I need to walk on eggshells here, but just so everyone knows: it was not the intention of the thread. I was merely suggesting a way for the tree lovers and the patch lovers to be able to coexist.

1) Do not plant bean trees. Ever.
2) Never plant near the projects. (Right now this means not planting in jethimadh or alakol)
3) Do not plant in every single patch of an area. Leave some empty patches between trees

Posted 19 months ago by Yaya Subscriber! | Permalink

Replies

  • Rules are made to be broken. The less rules the better. There will be many Glitch challenges. We will have to learn to work together to meet these challenges and allow for individual differences and opinions. We do not need to make personal attacks on those we disagree with. Later,
    Posted 19 months ago by Mater Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Yaya, I wasn't the one who made the thread with a list of rules. But Mater is right. This is silly.

    ETA: Sure, I complain...is that not okay? We're in testing mode. And this is a public forum. You have a right to your opinion, as do I. I do see I'm being confusing - sorry. I don't like rules, whether they can be enforced or not. If you want to voice your opinion, in the form of a request, I have absolutely no problem with that. But if you make 'rules'...then, yes, I do have a problem with that. And I appreciate that you changed the title of the thread :)
    Posted 19 months ago by Cupcake Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I have held off posting on this thread because I seem to change my attitude over time, and sometimes when I read something that makes me cross and answer it straight away it is too extreme.

    I think Glitch has changed over the year or so we have been playing.  The world is so much bigger now that I can't see any reason why people need to have such conflicts.  There is plenty of room for people to keep open patches near projects if they need or want to, newbies or anyone can poison and re-plant in many dead-end streets in other parts, so it is not unreasonable to keep patches open for projects.

    I don't do projects now, I used to enjoy them when they were not so crowded, but now I find them too hectic, so I don't bother;  but there are lots of people who love the rush and buzz, so they should have the chance to organise their needs around their work space I think.  There are plenty of streets for the rest of us in GF and GM etc.

    I hate poisoning trees, a purely personal and possibly unreasonable predjudice, but I have to sometimes and I have done in the past, so I don't see why other people shouldn't have the same right.  Eventually those patches near projects will be far away from the building area and they can be planted up then if necessary.  There is no rush, we are going to be playing for ages I hope, just take things slowly.

    I would like it if people were more careful with the words they use perhaps.  "Rule" is always contentious, but I don't think Yaya meant to offend, for someone with English as a third language it is not always easy to get just the right tone. (I am humble that her English is so good - my Spanish is rubbish!)

    Perhaps we could just wait for a while when we read something we don't agree with and see how we feel about it after reflection?  We are not in a particular hurry here are we?
    Posted 19 months ago by Cassandria Subscriber! | Permalink
  • cupcake, the problem is that your suggestion is what leads to the massive deforestation you complain about.

    the areas around projects are typically the least forested to begin with. streets are generated without and trees present and these days are usually immediately dug out to prevent planting.

    this makes maintaining the growth zone easier because ideally you preserve a buffer dirt preserving zone as you go and only have to snipe a few mistaken plantings here and there.

    unfortunately a lot more than a few mistaken planting happen, which is very costly to project participants.

    so the alternative you suggest is digging up patches elsewhere, which means preventing planting in the areas people typically like to harvest.

    as you know, the wider a search for free patches goes, the more effort is required to monitor and travel to the free patches. which are extremely rare away from project zones.

    the suggested compromise is to leave a dirt zone around current projects so that project builders don't end up going into and deforesting traditional harvesting grounds with high tree concentrations.

    this seems like a very fair compromise to me, and benefits everyone really.

    harvesters keep dense areas of productive trees. meanwhile, project builders are more easily able to build out areas that in the medium to long term are used for vastly increased planting and harvesting opportunities.

    so I come into this topic with a message of compromise, and the only response is that people want things to be a free for all.

    well, be careful what you wish for, because if you think a free for all is to your benefit, you are mistaken.

    a free for all is briar and co. nuking groddle from orbit. that's something I vigorously disagreed with, but seeing the complete lack of compromise on the other side, I'm coming to a better understanding of.

    why should they compromise when the planters are unwilling to, preferring to lobby developers to restrict poison instead of coming to a compromise of mutual benefit.
    Posted 19 months ago by striatic Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Okay. I hear what you're saying. Fair enough. I hope I haven't offended anyone, because I guess I haven't been very open-minded. I'm just going to stay out of the argument, if I can help it.
    Posted 19 months ago by Cupcake Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Phoebe Springback, [i]"If some people want to do projects in a timely fashion and others want to stall projects by filling up the patches with trees..." Obvious bias here. Do you actually believe people plant trees to stall the projects?[/i]

    In practice, yes. You can't plead ignorance as to the consequences of planting in all the patches, so why else would you be insisting on your right to plant in all the patches?

    @striatic, thank you for expressing what I've been wanting to say much more clearly than I could have.
    Posted 19 months ago by Blitz Subscriber! | Permalink
  • blitz, I think she meant that slowing down projects wasn't the point of the plantings, just a known side effect.
    Posted 19 months ago by striatic Subscriber! | Permalink
  • +1 Zaphod early on.  I refuse to listen to anyone telling me when/where to plant, kill, fondle or otherwise.  The game is not meant to play by one set of rules.  It is supposed to be a collective of different strategies of playing from all kinds of people, with all the Giants specializations taken into consideration.  One persons goals are not other peoples goals, and I sometimes think we can all lose sight of this.
    Posted 19 months ago by RainyRain Subscriber! | Permalink
  • +1 Cassandria
    Posted 19 months ago by Riverwalker Subscriber! | Permalink
  • rainy rain. it is supposed to be a collective of different people and strategies, but in a shared world without some compromise between players welcome to warfare.

    I hope you're not saying that we shouldn't take into account the effects of our actions on other players, because if so just wait until you're the one being run roughshod.

    coz all this is is compromise.

    again, if you want a free for all and no compromises, you're going to be on the bad end of it no matter what - that's a stick with no good ends.
    Posted 19 months ago by striatic Subscriber! | Permalink
  • btw I really liked cassandria's post.
    Posted 19 months ago by striatic Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I sometimes wonder whether Glitch isn't really all just a sociologist's PhD thesis. Reading this thread, I'd be sort of sad if it weren't.
    Posted 19 months ago by Helcat Subscriber! | Permalink
  • MMO's are often used to study Sociology, I would write an essay on you guys in a heartbeat if mine weren't all on history.

    Basically if you do not want your trees hurt, plant them in your backyard.
    Cheer up, we can expand them soon anyway.
    Posted 19 months ago by Ani Laurel Subscriber! | Permalink
  • There are far more choices for this community than "compromise" or "war".  Most players aren't even participating in this discussion, so they aren't going to be part of any compromise.  Nor are they likely to take sides in a "war". 

    There's a lot of dramatic talk going on here, but it's quite a small part of the actual player base talking. 
    Posted 19 months ago by WindBorn Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @striatic  ... well obviously "warfare" is not what I meant ... I'm not the type to view anything in extremes) ... (and I should also mention I did not read this entire thread, do to repetitiveness)

    perhaps I should have worded myself a bit differently...  
    I guess I am mainly voicing my recent frustrations with all the "rules" I see popping up everywhere and the constant bickering of killing kills versus not killing trees.  And seeing, yet again, another forum thread with rules on what do to, is a little ratcheting.

    In general, I believe in a balance, and so that is how I play.  I would not, however, force that on someone else in a game with a rule... but I would suggest it.
    Posted 19 months ago by RainyRain Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Cooperation and compromise should only be assumed within a specific group which has a specific goal and not the whole community of Glitch.   All difficulties outside of the control of the group need to be seen as challenges with resources; not as challenges at controlling others.   
    Posted 19 months ago by teet Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Interesting statement teet.. I've read and repeated a few times now... very interesting :)
    Posted 19 months ago by RainyRain Subscriber! | Permalink
  • The problem with Glitch is that it's too open. There is no wrong or right way of doing things.

    I agree with Cassandria and RainyRain on this one. I too refuse to listen to anyone who'll tell me how a supposedly open game should be played. As stated in the earlier post, I think "strategy" is the correct word here. From how I see it, the current method of executing project is not going too well.

    Yuh, "perhaps we could just wait for a while when we read something we don't agree with and see how we feel about it after reflection" seems very applicable here. Glitch is a very non-linear game. There maybe a hundred other strategies that can be applied to projects (I believe use-the-adjacent-areas-for-resource-gathering is just one of them). For me, part of what makes a game so enjoyable is how you can rack up your brains to find multiple optimal solutions.

    Yuh, compromise could be part of the solution, but I do hope that it doesn't lead to warfare. I prefer my Glitch world to be a peaceful one.
    Posted 19 months ago by roderick ordonez Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I thoroughly disagree that that aspect of the game is a 'problem'. It's a source of argument, yes, but it's also what keeps people playing.
    Posted 19 months ago by Cupcake Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I thoroughly disagree that that aspect of the game is a 'problem'. It's a source of argument, yes, but it's also what keeps people playing.
    Posted 19 months ago by Cupcake Subscriber! | Permalink
  • trying to cast "project people" versus "non-project people" as if they were two islands and never the twain shall meet is just silly.

    It's not silly to note that, over the course of testing, the pace of projects has had the effect of establishing a divide between Fraggle-type players and Doozer-type players. (Note that I never used the 'drone' metaphor.)

    Inclusivity has two components: the raw number of people involved, and the structural ability to get involved in a casual and fun way. Think of it as a semi-permeable bubble. If you look, for instance, at the more complex, high-profile ARGs, what often happens is that a small group of devotees push ahead at such a rapid pace that the rest are left in their wake, more spectators than participants.

    I don't think that's useful in terms of overall game mechanics, and it's status quo bias to argue that lessening the current pace of projects, or mitigating the methods that have been devised to accelerate them, would somehow ruin the game.

    seeing the complete lack of compromise on the other side

    As in RL, compromise works when there's agreement on fundamental worldviews, and here, there's actually a set of competing conceptions of the game world defined by the basic interactions available to players: one in which the features of the landscape present themselves to be used in-place -- patches for planting, trees for harvesting, piggies for nibbling -- and one where the option exists to direct those resources elsewhere.

    That's baked into the game, and I think it's slightly harsh of projecteers to rag on lower-level players who are doing what the game directs them to do in order to advance, just because those interactions interfere with the higher-level interactions that aren't available to them.

    We rush depending on the project.

    And now the tower's unlocked, you're itching for the next one?
    Posted 19 months ago by Holgate Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Actually that is not what compromise means. Compromise suggest two parties with conflicting if not opposed world views who want to work out a solution even when that might mean giving up something valuable to them.

    And sure, of course I am itching! every new area means new possibilities and the devs keep raising the bar!
    Posted 19 months ago by Yaya Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Blitz: You can't plead ignorance as to the consequences of planting in all the patches

    Who is this 'you'? It can mean participants on this thread, players in general, or the projected group of players to come in the future, for whose benefit we're sorta kinda meant to be playing in order to make Glitch a success. Is a future lower-level player going to want to come back if he/she runs into a bunch of project-builders who make a stink about planting in a patch when that's what the rock said? Are future higher-level players going to want to come back if they're having to police planting grounds to pursue their projects, or if the only source of advancement is through projects that they're not comfortable participating in?

    striatic: preferring to lobby developers to restrict poison instead of coming to a compromise of mutual benefit.

    There are compromises of mutual benefit for the current players, and compromises of mutual benefit that include the game as an abstract totality. The two overlap, but are not exactly the same.

    I certainly don't see it as "lobbying" to speak out about perceived imbalances in the game mechanics that have potential long-reaching and negative repercussions, especially ones associated with scale. Once Glitch is out of beta, and people are paying cash money to play, it becomes a lot more difficult to recalibrate from on high.
    Posted 19 months ago by Holgate Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Very good point Holgate-the perception a new player has when beginning to play Glitch should be the main consideration when making any "agreements" about game play.
    Posted 19 months ago by teet Subscriber! | Permalink
  • The majority of people planting in project areas aren't new.

    I think that is one of the reasons why the project areas are far away from the starting ground.. so that newbies have enough room to level up while learning the ropes. Groddle is fantastic for this because it is a harvesting area, it is filled with trees, animals and friendly solo players, and it is pretty safe.

    However, we can't sugarcoat the entire game just so that newbies feel comfortable, because believe it or not, the idea is to hook these players for a long time. So as they level up they will want new challenges and goals and the game provides it with projects.

    In every single MMORPG I have played (and that is quite a list) there are safe areas for beginners and more dangerous areas for advanced players. In those advanced areas there are generally a set of rules of conduct that people expect you to comply with (and they are very proficient at explaining them to new players). One example from typical MMORPGs could be the issue of looting when in questing in a party. Each game pretty much has its own set of rules about that, what items you are allowed to pick up, which ones you must never touch, etcetera. It is only fair. Do you go around in the real world doing whatever the F you please?

    Probably not, because even when something is not written down on the constitution, there are community rules of conduct that helps us live together.
    Posted 19 months ago by Yaya Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Rules for planting:

    1. Dont have any rules,
    2. if you dont like it dont play
    Posted 19 months ago by Hootaholic Subscriber! | Permalink
  • One last point, based on Cassandria's excellent comment:

    The world is so much bigger now that I can't see any reason why people need to have such conflicts.

    The game world is bigger, but it's still navigable in a relatively short amount of time. It's a good thing that the subway is off-limits to total newbies, but it doesn't take too long to get papers, and the presence of those subway stations in high-traffic areas creates an obvious impulse for lower-level players to explore the outer limits of the map. So it's bigger in some respects, and smaller in others.

    I'm loath to suggest it, but perhaps there might need to be other mechanisms to restrict movement in the early stages? I'm thinking of how GTA: San Andreas keeps its bridges between areas closed until certain tasks are performed.
    Posted 19 months ago by Holgate Subscriber! | Permalink
  • +1 to holgate & restricting exploration
    Posted 19 months ago by Yaya Subscriber! | Permalink
  • +100 for Lt
    Posted 19 months ago by Misha Subscriber! | Permalink
  • However, we can't sugarcoat the entire game just so that newbies feel comfortable.
    ...
    In every single MMORPG I have played (and that is quite a list) there are safe areas for beginners and more dangerous areas for advanced players.
    ...

    One of the major attractions of Glitch for me is the lack of danger. Isn't that what makes this game unique? A game where everyone, not just newbies, are made to feel comfortable? It feels to me like you are trying to inject conflict into a game that had none.
    Posted 19 months ago by Helcat Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Blitz. If you meant that wholesale planting comment for me, you got the wrong impression. I think keeping the areas immediately around a project open to digging is a good idea. I don't plant in patches, as I think the new people trying to complete that quest should be able to. And I think the people who plant in all open patches do it because they don't understand the balance yet. I really don't think its to hamstring other players..if you read a lot of their general posts, you'll see that they are generally really pleasant people. For the most part, newbies wont be near the projects, either. There're so many simple things to do in the beginning, they'll probably stick to the core areas.
    As for the people who want a completely open concept, with no rules at all, "I'll play whatever way I want to, regardless of whatever anyone else wants" (re-worded to get the emotional concept clearer), well, thats one way to do it, but chaos isn't much fun for very long. There are very aggressive players here, its what they're used to in a game. Then there are others who look for a kind of utopia in a game. There's bound to be conflict between the two, I don't think you can ever get rid of that. So its an ongoing effort to understand each other, and hopefully most of the people will want to come to a compromise, at least over time. The key is *listening* to each other. This discussion is all really interesting and eye-opening. Personally, I've gotten a much more positive impression of some people I really disapproved of in the beginning of this. I may not agree with a lot of their opinions, but I can see where they're coming from better.
    Keep on keeping on. :-D
    Posted 19 months ago by Phoebe Springback Subscriber! | Permalink
  • God, why do I feel like I am watching The Breakfast Club and Mean Girls on an endless loop?This confab is like the worst of high-school. Stop. Please. I don't care about rules other players try to impose. They are YOUR mores. If it's allowed in the game, then it's fine. And I don't care if you like me or not. Up to you. #done
    Posted 19 months ago by Mac Rapalicious Subscriber! | Permalink
  • (Randomly and without judgement towards anyone, I am about to make a statement. It is a personal statement about semantics and is based on my involvement in other online games (in betas and complete). I don't expect this to change and it is just me... I know. But I am going to say it anyway:

    I very much dislike the term "newbie." Even more "newb." Or worse "noob."

    I know most people are not using it in a pejorative way, I have seen it used as an "insult" so often in so many other arenas, I wince when I read it here.

    I am trying a pick a word to replace it, if only for myself. Perhaps "Glichling"... but that might not read. "Glich'ling"? "Neo-glich"? "Glich'Um"? 

    So much of these discussions/debates is about NOT making the "other" side feel wrong or marginalized. That's were things seem to go icky quickly.)
    Posted 19 months ago by Lord Bacon-o Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Lord Bacon-o I tried to start the word glitch-ling here a good few months ago. May not have been the first to use it?  if you put glitchlings into the search here it brings up my thread. But it just kind of went over everyone heads. I do use the word noob and it personalty does not offend "me". But I did very much like the name glitchlings :)
    Posted 19 months ago by Misha Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Noob, Newbie, Lowbie... they are all extremely common terms between every multi-player game. A new player, regardless of their personal feelings and experience with the word, generally knows what that means. They aren't going to know what a Glitchling is. I don't see noob used as an insult here as I have in other games, it *is* all in how the community uses it. Not saying it doesn't happen, but it's not as rampant as in other environments. I try to watch what I use on the other end though. I dislike the connotations surrounding words like High Level and Senior, but that's just me. While I'm all for self-censoring I'm against trying to enforce that level of PC... what's next? I can't say ass anymore because it might offend someone?
    Posted 19 months ago by Travinara Subscriber! | Permalink
  • newbie is also used from the military so. its not just mmorpgs. plus this is hardly an mmo nevermind an mmorpg. if people find it offensive then them themself must use it as an insult to think of it in that way. its a word thats over used for unskilled or new. its like saying dont call monday a monday
    Posted 19 months ago by Hootaholic Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I really do think that having empty patches near projects is not a huge thing to ask. Trees are NOT scarce--they are all over the place, and it is not at all hard to find them. The same cannot be said of empty patches. Plus, multiple people can harvest a single tree at once. This is not the case with dirt, which makes dirt/loam an even rarer resource. Therefore, planting more trees in an already tree-filled world can't possibly be happening because trees are scarce and we need more of them (really... they AREN'T SCARCE!) I can see the following reasons for someone planting trees in every single empty patch they see, including near projects:

    1) You need to complete the pet so-many saplings quest: I'm young enough in Glitch-years to actually remember doing this, and I was irritated that it was really hard to find empty patches to plant a new seedling. This was before poison existed, by the way, so I had no way of killing existing trees so I could plant a new one. It took me a ridiculously long time to complete that quest, and the only way I could do it was planting in empty patches in Groddle Heights, which I know p***ed people off because they wanted those patches for dirt. See--empty patches are needed for more than just dirt!

    2) You are new, and don't understand that there are other uses for empty patches besides planting trees, so you see it as something that should be done (why not?)

    3) You are obsessive compulsive, and seeing an empty patch gives you a horrible nagging feeling, and you just have to fill it with something... or else...

    4) You are angry at people for telling you what to do so you plant in every patch you see out of spite. That'll show 'em!

    I'm perfectly fine with 1-2. I feel sorry for 3, although I think you should make a concerted effort to get over your impulsive urges. 4 just irritates me--you're here to have fun, supposedly, so why are you doing things out of anger? Spread the hate, I guess. That's useful.
    Posted 19 months ago by Shepherdmoon Subscriber! | Permalink
  • As someone who just goes along playing the game quite happily by herself,  I'd just like to say that it's time for me to go to bed. 
    Posted 19 months ago by shhexy corin Subscriber! | Permalink
  • LOL,i just have to share this,and i'm in no way offended,but when i first came into this game,and i saw noobs being bandied around,i was like 'who are you calling a noob?'. You see i'm from the UK,and in jest  we call each other 'noobs',i guess like 'plonker',if we have done something stupid.That's why i say Newbs....;p
    Posted 19 months ago by Joos Subscriber! | Permalink
  • 4) You are angry at people for telling you what to do so you plant in every patch you see out of spite. That'll show 'em!

    To be fair, the only person who did that was me, so don't tag other people with that. Also, I doubt it's a widespread issue - and wouldn't have been one at all if I hadn't been ordered around by some user I had never seen before.
    Posted 19 months ago by Helcat Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I'm pretty sure I saw others besides you say they did that for that reason, Helcat...
    Posted 19 months ago by Shepherdmoon Subscriber! | Permalink
  • It's getting old, helcat. 
    Posted 19 months ago by Yaya Subscriber! | Permalink
  • In relation to "noob": As I said, it is purely me and just my experience. And, to be fair, it is most from online shooters, where it is often used in same way use other words that I care to not use. I just don't find it welcoming. (Again, less from how it has been used here than how I've witnessed it used else where. No judgement on anyone here. Just my personal choice.
    In relation to everything else (trees, etc): I think this is discussion is a good one. It is what folks should discuss in during an alpha/beta - What is this game and how can the game be designed to make it most like the game it wants to be? HOW that discussion happens is also important (tone of language used, not marginalizing other opinions, etc.). I get the sense that some of the conversation over this topic is being taken very very personally and directed very very personally... which, well, baffles me.
    As someone who tends to run fairly lone wolf and who splits his time (roughly) 20% on projects and 80% on everything else, the last test seemed pretty balanced to me. 
    When I put in the time and effort, I never felt shut out of projects. Yes, if I was signing on for just 30 minutes or an hour, it was unlikely I'd make much of a contribution to projects. However if I was going to be round for an hour or two, it was easy to be in place for a project phase to open and to be prepared to gather at least something that was needed. Was earth scarce around projects? Sure... but that just seemed to be balance to me. Seems silly for a project phase to be completed in under 30 minutes. And, I can keep a store of dirt at home using patches there.
    If I wasn't working on projects there were plenty of places where I could gather there stuff. Beans were hardish to come by in the levels I needed last round. In fact, twice I took streets that had six or more fruit trees, killed ONE and replaced it with a bean tree... which I then Fertidusted to being harvestable. 
    Are there going to be people (especially as the game grows) to do things that are "disruptive" (either because they don't know or because they like to cause grief ["griefers"])? Yes. Of course. At this point any one of at level 15 or more can "correct" those things pretty easily. I can't keep up with the amount of drinks I have coming in has bonus, much less making. My mood rarely ever drops below 75%. Nor is the cost of making a tree seed (much less buying on) make a dent in my resources. Even if I had nothing it would take me 15 minutes at most to get what I needed to make a tree seed.
    Is it a good "idea" to keep patches near projects clear? Sure. But if someone goes and plants in them, it would not take much effort to restore them back to patches. I am not going to spend much personal real world emotional energy angry at someone who planted (or someone who poisoned a tree I found useful). I'd just correct it the way I saw it.
    Just my .02 currents.
    Posted 19 months ago by Lord Bacon-o Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Here's a thought from a newish player (funny, I don't look newish):  brainstorm a way for devs to let players make new patches.in some other fashion.  For example, if there is a potion called "Soil Enricher" that can be made with the right chemicals, a player might be able to make it, pour it on empty ground (there might be some rule to figure out, regarding how far away from another patch), and make a nice new patch of soil, suitable for either planting trees or plants.  Perhaps there might be different types of potion for each, or, just perhaps, there are different potions for each that might work in different areas (after all, Ix might have a different overall chemistry than Groddle, given that's one of the few places gas plants can grow...).

    If beans need more uses, suggest new ones to the developers.  More recipes, like Irish Stew (which has exactly 239 beans because one more bean, and it would be "too farty"), might be one option.  Perhaps there might be additional ways to season a bean, like for making a paper tree... or, for an odd sort of turn, to seed new rocks to mine.  Alternately, if the various types of beans (including plain) were no longer availabe from street spirits, the beans would have even more value when you want to plant something in your home garden!

    In a pre-live situation, the solution is not for the players to argue, but rather to help the devs find a situation for frustration in play.
    Posted 19 months ago by Hazmat Subscriber! | Permalink
  • One option for players wanting more patches, after the reset you can all buy houses together and set your teleports between your street and the project, then go back and forth harvesting them as a group.

    Not every player reads the forums to know all these rules. I wish i'd taken a screenshot of a conversation between a group during the last test when an outsider had the nerve to buy an auction which was meant for a member of the group! It was almost as if the outsider thought the auctions were there for everyone...
    Posted 19 months ago by Sherbert Subscriber! | Permalink
  • lol Sherbert!
    Posted 19 months ago by Cassandria Subscriber! | Permalink
  • LOL Sherbert. Remember we can make whatever compromises and rules we want but when the game goes live, all the new players won't know or care about those rules.
    Posted 19 months ago by FrankenPaula Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Actually, most of the current players don't know or care about those rules.

    There are thousands of accounts on Glitch.  Not many of those people are reading and responding in this forum. 

    As has been said repeatedly, the rules only apply to the people who want to follow them.  Everyone else is free to play however they like.  Including buying things that are up for auction. 
    Posted 19 months ago by WindBorn Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Sherbert, you made me laugh. Too funny.

    Windborn, that pretty much sums it up. Anything else is just debate for debate's sake.
    Posted 19 months ago by en Subscriber! | Permalink
  • We seem to have lost the ability to balance the Glitch environment, as well as the general sense of common courtesy and thoughtfulness which was pervasive during alpha testing. 

    People who like projects shouldn't have to live together in a treeless area.  Each type of tree is useful, just as empty patches are useful, and projects rely on cherries, spice, gas, etc. 

    Politely-worded notes are certainly more effective than those of the "don't plant here or else" variety. 

    Stoot has mentioned that blockmaking will eventually lead to the ability to assemble structures made of blocks.  This will probably appeal to a large number of people, all of whom will need earth and loam in order to create blocks.  I suspect that this will lead to less of the "must plant in every patch" mentality.

    Also, Mackenzie, I hope you didn't think that I was yelling at you when you auctioned loam for 165 currants per lump.  I was just laughing.  :)  As you said, it's fine if projects take longer than they have lately, so I'm more willing to wait a bit for patches to regenerate than I am to pay exorbitant prices.  I understand that you incurred costs, but the encyclopedia lists loam's value at about ten currants per lump, and at the project site, people were giving each other loam without charging, or in exchange for the ability to donate a finished block.  I don't begrudge anyone the ability to charge as much as they want at auction, but I can certainly giggle at the prices.  If we all worried about recouping costs, projects would never be completed.
    Posted 19 months ago by glum pudding Subscriber! | Permalink