Topic

Can a dev please comment on the info and confusion about this?

A thread was started today and it appears that several people are not in agreement about how many times a tree may be harvested total.  Not by any one player, but combined.  

At the end of the thread, one player asks whether she is keeping resources away from others by harvesting the tree more than once.  

I believe having a dev comment on it will help us all to be better glitchens.  I'm sorry if I should not have created a thread about another thread, but I am not sure that the devs read all the threads and I didn't know how to communicate this to them any other way.    

Thanks!

Please read:   

www.glitch.com/forum/genera...

Posted 14 months ago by Reba Subscriber! | Permalink

Replies

  • There is no specific limit to the number of harvests — there is just a total capacity of items to get (and they regrow continuously, not at specific thresholds). It is very rare for a tree to get picked clean though (except for egg plants) so it is not a real worry.
    Posted 14 months ago by stoot barfield Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Thanks stoot!  :D
    Posted 14 months ago by Reba Subscriber! | Permalink
  • So, didn't stoot just verify everything Toksyuryel was saying?
    Posted 14 months ago by Biff Beefbat Subscriber! | Permalink
  • ...but what does this have to do with whether petting/watering a tree is somehow detrimental to others? Dude from other thread was "asking" people not to pet/water. This made zero sense to me.
    Posted 14 months ago by La_La Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Because when you pet the trees, you prevent others from doing so for X minutes.  If the tree runs out of mojo during that time, it can't be replenished.  As stoot said, this rarely happens, but the Ix spice trees are under constant assault.

    At the very least, he suggests harvesting first, which will give a few more seconds of spiciness before the tree is stuck in waiting mode.  Of course, if the tree is currently tapped, you have to pet first or you won't be able to harvest at all.
    Posted 14 months ago by Biff Beefbat Subscriber! | Permalink
  • No, that wasn't what the thread was saying, it was suggested to do the tending steps in the opposite order from the "standard" learned in the tutorial:  harvest 1st, then pet and water after.  I don't know if that strategy will make a difference, but people are still being asked to be nice to the trees.

    Edit:  This was in response to La_La, but Biff and I posted at about the same time.
    Posted 14 months ago by KhaKhonsu Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Mereret: Biff Beefbat has my intention completely right. I do apologize if I haven't been fully clear, it can be difficult for me to articulate my thoughts properly at times. You're also correct, and basically just restated the same thing- harvest first, tend second. But ideally you should only tend them when they're about to run dry, to maximize the number of people that can harvest from them. And if it is true that the game is recommending tending first then harvesting, something needs to change- either the tutorial needs to change to reflect the game mechanics, or the game mechanics need to change to reflect the tutorial.
    Posted 14 months ago by Toksyuryel Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Not only does the tutorial recommend that order, but if you use the Enter button to select a tree and it has all 3 options, the first one highlighted by default will be water, then pet, then harvest.
    Posted 14 months ago by Axe-a-lot-l Subscriber! | Permalink
  • stoot said: "there is just a total capacity of items to get (and they regrow continuously, not at specific thresholds)." (emphasis mine)

    So where in this is the implication that we need to space out the tending further?  I understand wanting to space it out in the example given of the Ix spice trees, but is there something I'm missing?  I'm not even sure that spacing it out helps there.  To me, this seems to be how it works (the following numbers are completely made up for illustrative purposes): 

    Tree A has 20 units of stuff, maximum.
    I tend the tree, which would normally add 5 units back, but the tree is already full.
    I harvest, removing one unit.
    That unit then grows back, because the growth time I added from tending is still in effect.
    You and 3 other players come by and harvest one unit each before there can be more petting and watering, but those units also grow back, because the mad powers of love, water, and sunshine are still working the LWS mojo all over the tree.

    Now, in the case of the Ix spice trees, more than 4 other people are coming by in the time it takes for petting and watering to be available again.  If my understanding is correct, then it doesn't matter when you pet or water, because the demand is past the tree's capability.  The only time in this scenario that I see it being a potential issue is if you have wasted units because not enough people come by during the growth time.  This, however, would require the effective growth time to be shorter than the cooldown on tending, and I have no idea whether or not that's the case.
    Posted 14 months ago by Magic Monkey Subscriber! | Permalink
  • "It is very rare for a tree to get picked clean though"

    The paper trees outside of the ancestral lands (Ix, Groddle Heights?) seem to be constantly picked clean at the moment. 

    "(except for egg plants)"

    But all the egg plants I see are stuffed to the gunwales with eggs - they never seemed to be picked clean. That's why Last Egg Standing is *so* hard...
    Posted 14 months ago by dopiaza Subscriber! | Permalink
  • .
    Posted 14 months ago by gimmegames Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Dopiaza said: "The paper trees outside of the ancestral lands (Ix, Groddle Heights?) seem to be constantly picked clean at the moment." 

    That's because few people care enough about them to pet and water them. Paper doesn't have a big purpose in the game right now, so it's not a highly sought after commodity. Why stop to take care of a tree if you don't even want what it offers?

    Perhaps this will change if projects start requiring paper again.
    Posted 14 months ago by Shepherdmoon Subscriber! | Permalink
  • As you advance in experience, you can harvest more and your chances of gettimg drops increases.  Around lev. 10 or a little later I was able to Harvest an individual tree twice a day whereas earlier it was only once.  However, I have participated while 3 people harvested a tree a total of about 5 times at once.  I harvested twice and two others also harvested once or twice each.  I think there is a daily limit of two harvests per tree per Glitch day but that tree can be harvested numerous times during the day by many individuals.
    Posted 14 months ago by Brib Annie Subscriber! | Permalink
  • There is no limit to the number of harvests
    The items regrow continuously, not at specific thresholds.

    Again, I challenge anyone to meet me at a spice tree with any number of buddies to test whether or not you folks can keep me from harvesting.  It simply can't be done.
    Posted 14 months ago by WindBorn Subscriber! | Permalink
  • If that's true, WindBorn, then how are trees ever in the state where they cannot be harvested until you pet them?  I see this all the time.

    Also stoot explicitly stated that they can be bled dry.
    Posted 14 months ago by Biff Beefbat Subscriber! | Permalink
  • WindBorn, stoot also stated that there is a total capacity, meaning that there is a max number to the number of times a harvest can be done if no one pets or waters it.  It's just very difficult on most trees to hit that point, because glitchlings pet and water well before the tree runs out.  This isn't always the case, however, such as on paper trees (which have a very small number of available harvests) and on trees that are in very heavily trafficked areas and have a very high demand (East and West Spice).  If everyone harvests the trees faster than the rate of continuous regrowth, or no one pets/waters (and therefore regrowth isn't triggered), the trees can then run out of items.
    Posted 14 months ago by Magic Monkey Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Biff Beefbat, Magic Monkey

    "until you pet them"

    That's exactly the point.  There is nothing anyone else can do that will keep me from harvesting. 

    Try as you might, all I need to do is pet the tree and I can harvest.  You cannot make the tree run out of spice so that I cannot get my full daily harvest.  At most, I may have to pet and water before I can harvest.

    The only tree that I ever have to wait for is paper, and that has nothing to do with other people petting/watering or not petting watering.  It has to do with the total capacity of the paper tree.  If you come upon a paper tree that has all the menu items grayed out, you will always have to pet and water* before you can harvest.  There is never a time when petting/watering limits the harvest.

    *you may have to wait a few minutes for petting to appear on the menu, but by the time you finish petting, watering has also appeared. After you pet and water, harvest will appear.
    Posted 14 months ago by WindBorn Subscriber! | Permalink
  • There is nothing anyone else can do that will keep me from harvesting.

    What they can do is bleed the tree dry, leaving it in a state where you cannot harvest and you cannot pet, because it has been pet too recently.

    Do it with an Egg plant.  It's easy to see it happen there.

    EDIT: you may have to wait a few minutes for petting to appear on the menu

    A-ha!  You've got it!
    Posted 14 months ago by Biff Beefbat Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Well, I thought the response from stoot would finally put an end to all of this, but alas I was wrong.  There is still quite a bit of stubbornness going on and/or misunderstanding.

    from stoot: There is no specific limit to the number of harvests — there is just a total capacity of items to get (and they regrow continuously, not at specific thresholds). It is very rare for a tree to get picked clean though (except for egg plants) so it is not a real worry.

    What this tells me is that spice trees have xxx amount of allspice available, continuously being replenished at a rate of xxx/xxx, regardless of whatever tending actions the players do.  In the very rare case that players are harvesting at a quicker rate than the tree can naturally replenish itself, it may run dry.  If tending a tree replenishes it, then I still fail to see how in the world petting and watering a tree is so detrimental to other players.  I really don't know how many ways it needs to be said so that it finally sinks in.
    Posted 14 months ago by Joojoo Subscriber! | Permalink
  • The point is the timing of the petting.  If you pet the tree while it's still loaded up, you've locked out the ability to replenish it until it can be petted again.

    This is only a big issue in high-traffic areas, but it doesn't get any higher-traffic than Ix, and that's what the original message was about.

    In general, this is not a big deal, but on the Spice streets, if you show up at the wrong time, you can find yourself in front of a whole row of trees refusing to put out.

    The initial request was to not pet if the tree is heavy with spice, but a rule of thumb of harvesting before petting would improve things slightly.  No one said to never pet or water.

    I'm not sure if the mechanics still work this way, but several times in the past I have noticed that I did not get the normal load of fruit from a tree because I had just hit its max.  After petting it, I was able to perform my second harvest and get the full amount.

    Does that help to explain?  stoot really did confirm the original hypothesis.
    Posted 14 months ago by Biff Beefbat Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Biff, I get that, but the time between pettings is minutes, not hours.  I think it's pretty safe to assume the tree won't dry out unless the entire population of Ur descends on that one tree at the exact moment you pet it.

    Regarding your 3rd paragraph...has that actually happened to you or is it hyperbole?  I have never experienced a single tree that I couldn't harvest (provided I hadn't already harvested it that game day), let alone an entire row.

    Regarding your 4th paragraph...I believe you didn't read the original post that this relates to.  The poster was berating people that pet and watered trees that were fully blossomed and essentially was ordering everyone to only pet and water when the tree was bare.

    Regarding your 5th paragraph...I am again baffled by your assertion.  Are you sure you received a smaller harvest or perhaps you filled a stack and it was a split harvest?  I can truthfully say I've never seen that happen.

    Regarding your closing...umm...no...if anything, stoot disproved the original assertion.

    ***Let me clarify...the original assertion was that trees have a pre-determined amount of fruit and that petting and watering the tree would lock it from being able to be pet and watered again, so that if in between pets, it was picked dry, you were an inconsiderate Glitch for wasting a pet/water action.  As stoot pointed out, trees are continuously being replenished naturally.  Could it happen that a tree is bare and can't be pet or watered?  Sure, technically, it's possible.  Realistically, not so much.  But it's moot anyway since pet/water actions are only locked for a few minutes.  How do you figure stoot confirmed the original hypothesis?
    Posted 14 months ago by Joojoo Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I always pet and water before I harvest, I thought that was how I was supposed to do it? But it seems I should harvest, then water/pet, then try to harvest again?
    Posted 14 months ago by Rwelean Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I'm not sure why this is so complicated...

    Biff, I get that, but the time between pettings is minutes, not hours. 

    Yes.  The intent is to prevent people from leaving a long row of trees in a state such that they cannot be harvested for a few minutes.  It's a small point, but it's valid, and can be mitigated if people just think differently.

    I think it's pretty safe to assume the tree won't dry out unless the entire population of Ur descends on that one tree at the exact moment you pet it.

    This is not a correct assumption, although your thought process is easy to understand because it is uncommon.  Ix is quite uncommon, however, because it's where the majority of people go to collect a resource that's in high demand.

    Regarding your 3rd paragraph...has that actually happened to you or is it hyperbole?

    It has happened.  It's easy to understand how it does, since people travel in a line, and particularly in East Spice they where they are typically all headed in the same direction. You follow a line of people who have systematically tapped out the trees right in front of you.

    The poster was berating people that pet and watered trees that were fully blossomed and essentially was ordering everyone to only pet and water when the tree was bare.

    That's the basic premise, yes, although it's more about the opposite case where the tree is clearly not in need of petting, but they pet first anyway.

    Are you sure you received a smaller harvest or perhaps you filled a stack and it was a split harvest?


    Nope, it was a smaller harvest, not a split thing.  The first time I saw it, I thought it was simply a split thing, but then I noticed the correlation between the small harvest, the tree appearing tapped, petting, and then receiving the full harvest.

    Regarding your closing...umm...no...if anything, stoot disproved the original assertion.

    Pretty sure he didn't.

    I can understand if you think the problem is too small to care about, but the problem obviously exists or the original poster wouldn't have brought it up in the first place.  I don't personally care so much about the issue, but I hate it when people pile on to someone who is correct just because they appear to be in violation of "common knowledge".

    Could it happen that a tree is bare and can't be pet or watered? 

    Yes, and it happens frequently in certain places.

    But it's moot anyway since pet/water actions are only locked for a few minutes.

    It appears you do understand the issue, up to the point where you call it "moot".  More accurately, this is simply a problem that doesn't affect you personally.  That doesn't make the original poster incorrect.
    Posted 14 months ago by Biff Beefbat Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I'm not saying the issue is large or small.  I'm saying the original argument is a non-issue.  stoot has said as much without actually saying it in those words.

    Fact: Trees are in continuous replenishment.  It has nothing to do with who pet and watered it and how many times. 

    As I said, the time between pet and water actions is very small.  That's also hardly an issue.  I've been in Ix at all hours of the day, and I have never experienced what you say you've experienced, so forgive me if I'm a little incredulous.  A row full of completely bare and unpettable trees?

    While I can appreciate your desire to defend the defenseless, everything should be viewed in its proper context.  Perhaps the reason so many are "piling on", as you say, is because the original poster was adamant that his way of thinking was correct and everyone who disagreed was wrong.  I have seen no official evidence from TS that petting and watering a fully blossomed tree is detrimental to other players, as the original poster was claiming.
    Posted 14 months ago by Joojoo Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I'm not saying the issue is large or small.

    You actually did so yet again in this very post.

    Fact: Trees are in continuous replenishment.  It has nothing to do with who pet and watered it and how many times.

    Petting causes a significant bump in replenishment.  I don't know how slow the auto-replenishment is, but it's certainly slow enough that it is possible to encounter many unharvestable trees in a row.  Not for more than a few minutes, obviously, but enough to notice the phenomenon.

    Perhaps the reason so many are "piling on", as you say, is because the original poster was adamant that his way of thinking was correct and everyone who disagreed was wrong.

    I think the more likely explanation is that they didn't understand the issue.  That's why the original poster had to repeatedly state the same thing, only to have others again attack the same straw man. You have admitted the issue exists, but it's very small. I think it's a slightly larger problem than you believe it to be, but also agree that it is small.

    The argument seems to stem from the OP suggesting that people make a minor change to their behavior (or at least understand that a certain type of behavior can cause an issue), and others interpreting that as "never pet or water" or "petting is always rude".  It's a small problem, he was asking for a small fix, but instead he got a fight because people were responding to something he didn't say.  If he got agitated, I understand, because people kept attacking him for a position he never took.

    I have seen no official evidence from TS that petting and watering a fully blossomed tree is detrimental to other players, as the original poster was claiming.

    Yes, you have and have admitted such (unless I am misintepreting you).  Maybe your contention is that the problem is so small that is, in fact, not a problem? That's more a definition of terms thing than anything else.
    Posted 14 months ago by Biff Beefbat Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Biff, please quote me fully, if you're going to quote me.
    "I'm not saying the issue is large or small.  I'm saying the original argument is a non-issue."
    I'm not branding it a specific size, I'm saying it's not even an issue, given the unlikelihood of it happening.  I guess it's just a semantics argument we're going to keep going round and round in, so I'll just leave it at that.

    The point I'm trying to make is that while it is technically possible to leave a tree bare and have all the interactive options grayed out, it would be a highly unlikely event (stoot's own words: It is very rare for a tree to get picked clean).  So much so that to cling to the technical possibility as proof for why you should change your behavior is just plain silly.

    And I go back to an earlier post I had made in the other thread, if we weren't meant to pet and water a tree unless it really needed it, then it would not be an option.  No one knows the behind the scenes intricacies of Glitch better than the devs, and they have left those options available.  I think we can rather safely assume that performing those actions will not have a negative effect.
    Posted 14 months ago by Joojoo Subscriber! | Permalink
  • The point I'm trying to make is that while it is technically possible to leave a tree bare and have all the interactive options grayed out, it would be a highly unlikely event (stoot's own words: It is very rare for a tree to get picked clean).

    We are very close to agreement.  However, it is not technically "unlikely" to happen, because it does in fact happen.  The issue of whether it does happen is closed, as far as I'm concerned, because I've seen it happen a number of times.

    You can choose to believe it never happens, and in any event it's not a widespread problem.  But have you not gotten the last egg?  That should prove it to you.  Maybe you don't play during prime time or you haven't fondled the trees as much during the influx of new players.

    However, I assume you have no difficulty accepting that the Spice streets are an anomaly in the game and if it's going to happen anywhere, it's going to happen there.  And if it can happen once (which you agree it can), then it should not be difficult to accept that it happens repeatedly in the same place where everyone is performing the same actions.  So if it ever happens (which it does), it would be unusual if it didn't affect an entire street at a time in Ix.

    So much so that to cling to the technical possibility as proof for why you should change your behavior is just plain silly.

    If you want to say "I don't care about this problem and therefore will not change my behavior", that is one statement, but if the problem, no matter how small, exists and alleviating the problem (even the effect is fairly minor) is extremely easy, then it's not unreasonable to inform others of a way to deal with the problem.

    This is really quite a silly discussion, and we've spent more time going back and forth than would probably be saved by changing behavior, but the original poster is not wrong.
    Posted 14 months ago by Biff Beefbat Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Ah, but the original poster is attempting to get everyone who reads the forums to stop following the TS tutorial, and change their behavior so that the OP can play the game they way they like. 

    This, like many threads with similar goals is pretty much doomed from the start.  Especially since the probability of this event being observed is close to zero. 
    Posted 14 months ago by WindBorn Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Perhaps his initial statement was a bit brash, but ultimately his sentiment is valid.  And the probability is nothing like zero, given that we all (including stoot) admit it can happen and some of us have seen it happen.

    It's rare for anyone to be struck by lightning, but it can and does happen, and when it does it sucks.  There are some fairly simple and painless precautions you can take to lower your chances of it happening, and most people do those things without kerfufflage.
    Posted 14 months ago by Biff Beefbat Subscriber! | Permalink
  • For him it sucks to have to wait up to a minute for a tree to re-fruit.  Apparently very few other players feel that way.  I don't and I would guess that joojoo doesn't either. 

    If the cost, for you, of a low-probability event is essentially zero, then there's no reason to even consider changing your behavior.  If the event probability is so low that you've never seen it in-game, then you are likely to estimate its probability as zero.  Expected value of changing your behavior = probability of event times the cost if the event happens.  Zero times zero is zero. 
    Posted 14 months ago by WindBorn Subscriber! | Permalink
  • However, by bringing this issue to your attention, you now know the probably is not in fact zero, and you know what the most beneficial behavior to employ in that situation would be.  Whether you choose to act on that knowledge is neither here nor there, but the OP has successfully brought the issue into your consciousness, and therefore has succeeded.
    Posted 14 months ago by Biff Beefbat Subscriber! | Permalink
  • sorry, even if the probability is 100%, zero (my cost if  the event occurs) times 100 is still zero. 

    The OP is asking for everyone else to change how they play the game, which is also how the tutorial explains you should play the game, and is even reinforced by how the paper trees force you to play the game, because of an event you've never seen happen, and the result of which is that the OP has to pause a few seconds while a tree regens?

    That's pretty much "play my style, so I can benefit" and hardly the kind of community-improving change that is going to be persuasive. All he's raised awareness of is how self-centered that request is.
    Posted 14 months ago by WindBorn Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Maybe he initially said that, but he seemed to refine his point later.  Even if he didn't, the implication is that if you see this phenomenon, there's a reasonable way to help alleviate it.

    He brought new information into the discussion.  If anything, this is a sign that the spice streets are getting stressed and it's probably time for a Polloloco for spice.  I'm sure that's being worked on anyway, but it's still an interesting point.

    It's more helpful to focus on the actual issue than the perceived motivation of the poster.
    Posted 14 months ago by Biff Beefbat Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Focusing on an issue and community-oriented solutions is helpful. 

    If the solution presented is one that benefits the OP, without showing how it also benefits the other parts of the community, then discussing the perceived motivation of the poster helps the community figure out a win-win solution.

    If the solution presented goes against the intro tutorial, and the game mechanics, it's even more important that the OP outline how every player will benefit from changing their behavior.
    Posted 14 months ago by WindBorn Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Obviously, there'd only be a need to alter behavior when the phenomenon is occurring.  When it's not taking place, it wouldn't affect other players, so it would not matter.

    The disposition of the original poster is not relevant.  We all have the capacity to move beyond that.
    Posted 14 months ago by Biff Beefbat Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I guess ... I just don't see that it's a big deal to wait a couple of minutes to start your spice run.  Do some cooking while you wait, grind some ore, tinker your tool, whatever.  It seems like one or two people saying that it's more rational to hold out on the trees until they refuse to give spice before we water them, because it's inconvenient for a few players every once in a while.  But I don't get the impression, and excuse me because I am new here, that this is the kind of game and community where that's the encouraged attitude. 

    I think that if it were really to become a persistent problem GOD would adjust the respawn rate or plant more spice trees on a new continent somewhere.
    Posted 14 months ago by Scarlett Bearsdale Subscriber! | Permalink
  • No, it's not a large problem, and it doesn't require a monumental change to anyone's behavior.  The length of the discussion is a bit silly, actually.

    But if it affects one person, it affects everyone in the same place at the same time, so it's about more than just one person bitching.  If you care about making things more convenient for other players, then it's an interesting bit of information.  If you think it's no big deal and others should just suck it up, that's valid too.

    I think the larger point is just to make it clear that the rule of thumb of "watering/petting is always the friendliest behavior" is not quite right.  Although I suppose that's also obvious in the sense that if you water/pet, the guy in line behind you loses the opportunity to do so (along with the associated benefits), but that's true of most resources in the game.
    Posted 14 months ago by Biff Beefbat Subscriber! | Permalink