AFK Rare Gathering Not Era-Accurate

[LeonZA]

Except then you are also jailing poeple AFK macroing skills or counts also.......

I wasn't aware that afk macroing was legal here. It was illegal over there.

[Light Shade]

I doubt you'll ever see a CAPTCHA as its not era accurate, but if they did decide to do something similar to this they could have it triggered in small sub-regions setup around the rares. Also, it can be setup to trigger by certain activities, like mining, lumberjacking, etc...

But yeah, CAPTCHA isn't Era-Accurate, so it just won't happen.

[Scar Symmetry]

With Razor being legal, the solution would have to come from a mechanic involving picking up/stealing the item on the server side. Maybe something like randomizing the spawn within the sub-region, thus keeping the item spawn in the same general vicinity & requiring more "hands-on" searching than what a script/macro would allow.

[LeonZA]

Code: Select all

With Razor being legal, the solution would have to come from a mechanic involving picking up/stealing the item on the server side. Maybe something like randomizing the spawn within the sub-region, thus keeping the item spawn in the same general vicinity & requiring more "hands-on" searching than what a script/macro would allow.

And a random big monster spawn

[Light Shade]

While I agree that this is an issue we should be working on mainly for mechanical accuracy reasons, I would like to note that collecting rares is not defined as AFK resource gathering. They cannot be sold to a vendor, nor can they be crafted once gathered and sold in the same way. The only thing that these items enable is the transfer of wealth between players, which is strictly controlled by the desire and willingness of players to pay for such items.

Unfortunately, this ignores the fact that they DO have a value. Just because that value is not determined by a line of code, does not make them worthless.

In real life, gold has been used for currency for thousands of years. Its just a lump of metal similar to copper or aluminum. It's rarity is a matter of debate. One thing is certain. It IS worth money for the same exact reason that other things are worth money. They have a demand for the item.

You base your premise around what can and cannot be sold to a vendor, but this is flawed logic at best. To say that one item has "value" based off of Vendor code while another does not completely ignores the fact that there is SOME value to those items. There is SOME gain for not playing the game, regardless of who determines that gain.

In order to accept your premise, you have to assume that players think these items are worthless. We all know that this is not true, so it throws your argument out the window. Sure, it doesn't "create" wealth in the sense of adding "gold" to the economy, but it ignores that there IS a value to said item.

In the end, they are profiting by NOT playing the game.
Players are punished that actually play the game attended.
This is simply an illogical gameplay policy for this shard.

-L/S

P.S. I saw this discusion in IRC overnight and felt the need to re-iterate how incredibly devoid of common sense this all is.

[Hoots]

While I agree that this is an issue we should be working on mainly for mechanical accuracy reasons, I would like to note that collecting rares is not defined as AFK resource gathering. They cannot be sold to a vendor, nor can they be crafted once gathered and sold in the same way. The only thing that these items enable is the transfer of wealth between players, which is strictly controlled by the desire and willingness of players to pay for such items.

Unfortunately, this ignores the fact that they DO have a value. Just because that value is not determined by a line of code, does not make them worthless.

In real life, gold has been used for currency for thousands of years. Its just a lump of metal similar to copper or aluminum. It's rarity is a matter of debate. One thing is certain. It IS worth money for the same exact reason that other things are worth money. They have a demand for the item.

You base your premise around what can and cannot be sold to a vendor, but this is flawed logic at best. To say that one item has "value" based off of Vendor code while another does not completely ignores the fact that there is SOME value to those items. There is SOME gain for not playing the game, regardless of who determines that gain.

In order to accept your premise, you have to assume that players think these items are worthless. We all know that this is not true, so it throws your argument out the window. Sure, it doesn't "create" wealth in the sense of adding "gold" to the economy, but it ignores that there IS a value to said item.

In the end, they are profiting by NOT playing the game.
Players are punished that actually play the game attended.
This is simply an illogical gameplay policy for this shard.

-L/S

P.S. I saw this discusion in IRC overnight and felt the need to re-iterate how incredibly devoid of common sense this all is.

I'm going to agree with LS here.

SoS's/Mibs cant be sold to a vendor? Their value is totally set by players (yes.. this is obviously devil's advocate)

Common sense needs to play a role in game mechanics.

I would think an easy fix could be to not have rares spawn with players on screen. Once a timer is ready to spawn it wont spawn until no players are on screen? If something like 30mins passes without being able to spawn the rare goes into "random spawn" where it will try to spawn every x minutes or x hours until no players are on screen?

[Light Shade]

I would think an easy fix could be to not have rares spawn with players on screen. Once a timer is ready to spawn it wont spawn until no players are on screen? If something like 30mins passes without being able to spawn the rare goes into "random spawn" where it will try to spawn every x minutes or x hours until no players are on screen?

This is actually doable with the spawning system.

[221396056]

No offense but, never saw you complain about it until your guide on how to do it was made public, and you no longer had all the spoils to yourself. It would have been in the best interest of the shard for you not to have farmed those massive amounts of rares using said methods. I find it a bit ironic that you have exploited this method for quite sometime, but now that its out for everyone to use you no longer want it to be allowed.

This. I care not for rares, but somehow what Stranger said makes much more sense to me than this nice little 'oh, we're all for the good of the people!' web Light Shade and Co are trying to spin here. Just my two cents. Peace out.

[Mikel123]

While I agree that this is an issue we should be working on mainly for mechanical accuracy reasons, I would like to note that collecting rares is not defined as AFK resource gathering. They cannot be sold to a vendor, nor can they be crafted once gathered and sold in the same way. The only thing that these items enable is the transfer of wealth between players, which is strictly controlled by the desire and willingness of players to pay for such items.

It seems like you're saying that because other players can control how much gold/resources the AFK rare gatherers are profiting via their AFK macro, this is acceptable? Because in some kind of insane thought-experiment scenario, that number could theoretically be zero?

There is no market or economic system, in-game or otherwise, in which labor is valued at zero. When I buy shackles from someone, I'm not buying shackles. They're freely available. I'm paying for the labor and technical knowledge which was used in obtaining them. And this is always going to be some amount greater than zero.

As for the desire to obtain the shackles in the first place... by spending time and effort to put them into this shard, you are operating under the assumption that someone on this shard will spend time and effort to obtain them. (Otherwise, you/Derrick would spend that time implementing something else that actually would get utilized). Player time and effort has an opportunity cost, which can be measured (among other ways) in terms of the amount of gold pieces that one could have obtained during that time with that effort if they hadn't decided to get the rares instead.

I have to assume that if Derrick or you thought it was remotely possible that no one would ever want a single spawning rare... that no one would ever spend opportunity cost gold pieces to get a rare instead... that there are other things you could have worked on for this shard instead of a rare system that had zero value. Simply by implementing it, you are acknowledging that players would at some point spend some time (and thus opportunity cost gold pieces) to obtain them. And thus, AFK rare gathering is indeed equivalent to AFK gold gathering.

[Light Shade]

This. I care not for rares, but somehow what Stranger said makes much more sense to me than this nice little 'oh, we're all for the good of the people!' web Light Shade and Co are trying to spin here. Just my two cents. Peace out.

Aside from the fact that your comment is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand...

Your comment makes zero sense if you read the Forum PM's I sent to Derrick, well before someone posted that guide, about whether I should let everyone have all that information or not.

I was fighting for AFK Rare Gathering to be removed before that guides release.
Here is the screen caps I sent Stranger back when we were talking via PM's about that very issue...
Link: Pictures

As has been said before, just because someone used the allowable mechanics doesn't make their argument for their removal any less relevant. If anything, it makes them a bit more credible when it comes to discussing the topic. I know, logic....its a tough one for some people.

P.S.

'oh, we're all for the good of the people!'

You do know that I gave everything I had in this game away to completely random players, correct?

[Kaivan]

I'm really pressed for time today, so I'll try to make this brief.

Unfortunately, this ignores the fact that they DO have a value. Just because that value is not determined by a line of code, does not make them worthless.

The fact that something has value, and the fact that something creates new value are separate issues. One facilitates the shift of value, the other creates it out of thin air.

In real life, gold has been used for currency for thousands of years. Its just a lump of metal similar to copper or aluminum. It's rarity is a matter of debate. One thing is certain. It IS worth money for the same exact reason that other things are worth money. They have a demand for the item.

Finite commodities have value based on their store of wealth, inability to be cheaply reproduced (look at aluminum as a great example), and their use in producing things that could not be produced without it. They do not create wealth, merely store it relative to other forms of value storage.

Also, this comparison is apples to oranges. The total amount of available commodities in real life is static, while the total availability of something like in-game gold is not.

You base your premise around what can and cannot be sold to a vendor, but this is flawed logic at best. To say that one item has "value" based off of Vendor code while another does not completely ignores the fact that there is SOME value to those items. There is SOME gain for not playing the game, regardless of who determines that gain.

The premise is based off of what can be sold to a vendor, because that sale creates value out of thin air. The fact that rares don't lose their value is simply an inherent relationship between demand, low to non-existent increase in availability of the rare, and the relatively fast increase in the availability of other items of value.

Also, the rule is not designed to prevent the transfer of wealth, and you're suggesting that it should. If that were the case, there would be many other circumstances where we would have to limit or ban certain practices based purely on player driven value.

It seems like you're saying that because other players can control how much gold/resources the AFK rare gatherers are profiting via their AFK macro, this is acceptable? Because in some kind of insane thought-experiment scenario, that number could theoretically be zero?

The intent is to prevent the creation of wealth out of thin air, which a rare does not do. You cannot sell it to a vendor to increase the total amount of gold available, and thus add value to the game. Rares only facilitate the transfer of wealth.

There is no market or economic system, in-game or otherwise, in which labor is valued at zero. When I buy shackles from someone, I'm not buying shackles. They're freely available. I'm paying for the labor and technical knowledge which was used in obtaining them. And this is always going to be some amount greater than zero.

Again, this is apples to oranges. The value of labor is applicable when the labor produces something that couldn't be produced without the labor (i.e. refined metals). The value for rares is in their store of value, which is entirely driven by player demand, since they have no use elsewhere.

As for the desire to obtain the shackles in the first place... by spending time and effort to put them into this shard, you are operating under the assumption that someone on this shard will spend time and effort to obtain them. (Otherwise, you/Derrick would spend that time implementing something else that actually would get utilized). Player time and effort has an opportunity cost, which can be measured (among other ways) in terms of the amount of gold pieces that one could have obtained during that time with that effort if they hadn't decided to get the rares instead.

I have to assume that if Derrick or you thought it was remotely possible that no one would ever want a single spawning rare... that no one would ever spend opportunity cost gold pieces to get a rare instead... that there are other things you could have worked on for this shard instead of a rare system that had zero value. Simply by implementing it, you are acknowledging that players would at some point spend some time (and thus opportunity cost gold pieces) to obtain them. And thus, AFK rare gathering is indeed equivalent to AFK gold gathering.

The rare spawns were on the server starting at or near day 1, well before a defined scope or objective had been formalized for UOSA. Since then, they have remained virtually untouched, and at this point, when we do address the rare spawns, it will be with the intent of making it as accurate as possible.

Also, opportunity cost is not a sufficient comparison of activities for determining whether something is or isn't equivalent to something else. If it were, the logical course would be to evaluate every type of action to determine whether that action provides a better opportunity cost than something else, and ban all actions that provide a better opportunity cost than some baseline action (i.e. clicking a house sign for decay status).

Note: When I say "creates wealth out of thin air", this can be interpreted to mean "transfers wealth to that person, from everyone else, without any effort or consent". Either interpretation is valid, and still differentiates willing wealth transfer from unwilling wealth transfer or wealth creation. This is the only intent of our AFK resource gathering policy.

[Mikel123]

I guess I fail to see why value created by player demand is different than value created by NPCs.

If you know, with certainty, that I can sell a katana I found on an orc for 33gp to an NPC... and you know, with certainty, that I can sell shackles I found for 33gp to a player... I just don't see how one of these things is creating wealth and the other is not.

The idea that shackles don't "do" anything is silly. As long as there is one player on the shard who values decoration, they do plenty. Likewise, I could argue that for a player like Chumbucket, a katana doesn't "do" anything. There is no threshold of lines of code under which an object does nothing, and above which it "does something". The utility of every object in this game is entirely dependent on player interest and interaction.

Finally, let me propose a thought experiment, now that vendors have a fixed purse with which to buy things. If NPCs on the shard can only buy, say, 50k gp worth of metal items and ingots per hour, than any ingots I mine after that hour are only able to be sold to other players. Thus they don't create NPC-sourced wealth, but rather they just facilitate existing wealth transfer between players. Right?

Actually, let's even take it one more step back. Ingots themselves are, essentially, never sold to NPCs. The items they create are essentially never sold to NPCs either. One gets more gold pieces by selling ingots and Blacksmith-made items to other players. So if I mine ingots myself, and throughout their existence they and their derivatives are only ever used by players, there is no wealth creation from me AFK mining them, right?

[Hoots]

I guess I fail to see why value created by player demand is different than value created by NPCs.

If you know, with certainty, that I can sell a katana I found on an orc for 33gp to an NPC... and you know, with certainty, that I can sell shackles I found for 33gp to a player... I just don't see how one of these things is creating wealth and the other is not.

The idea that shackles don't "do" anything is silly. As long as there is one player on the shard who values decoration, they do plenty. Likewise, I could argue that for a player like Chumbucket, a katana doesn't "do" anything. There is no threshold of lines of code under which an object does nothing, and above which it "does something". The utility of every object in this game is entirely dependent on player interest and interaction.

Finally, let me propose a thought experiment, now that vendors have a fixed purse with which to buy things. If NPCs on the shard can only buy, say, 50k gp worth of metal items and ingots per hour, than any ingots I mine after that hour are only able to be sold to other players. Thus they don't create NPC-sourced wealth, but rather they just facilitate existing wealth transfer between players. Right?

Actually, let's even take it one more step back. Ingots themselves are, essentially, never sold to NPCs. The items they create are essentially never sold to NPCs either. One gets more gold pieces by selling ingots and Blacksmith-made items to other players. So if I mine ingots myself, and throughout their existence they and their derivatives are only ever used by players, there is no wealth creation from me AFK mining them, right?

To start off, i agree that AFK rare gathering makes no sense. I actually sent Derrick some PM in regards to afk gathers around ~2009 when i last played, and i think he even popped into game once so i could show him first hand... This long before super detailed razor scripts were the norm (or at least made public....)

That being said, i think you are missing his point Mikel.

The system is cut / dry. You cant afk gather anything that creates gold from the system. While your ingot analogy is fair, ingots could still be sold to vendors creating more gold in the system.

The point about the vendor rules isnt valid. The rule is about if a NPC can buy the item, not if they are currently available to.

And I do agree that Rares do not create gold from the system (they dont increase the total # of GPs on the shard like selling metal/wood items do).



Lastly...and this is 100% opinion... but any type of regulation requires enforcement... and that correlates directly to human time from GMs in this case. Time which they likely dont have or could be spent on more pressing issues.

So in summary..I agree 100% that afk rare gathering being allowed makes zero sense, but understand why it is. A system (like the one i suggested a few posts up) that would change rare spawns would not be era accurate and as Kaivan said, any changes done to rares will be in regards to accuracy.... So... It is what it is.

[Mikel123]

Please don't tell me I'm missing the point. I understand the point. It's a dumb point. That's what I'm getting at.

Just because you are able to adhere to a given rule, does not make it a good rule. Just because a rule is "cut and dry" does not make it a good rule.

The rule is about if a NPC can buy the item, not if they are currently available to.

This is completely and totally arbitrary. In my opinion, inertia is not a valid argument.

The notion of "increasing gold on the shard" also seems arbitrary, given that we know for certainty that items unable to be turned into gold will still have value.

[Kaivan]

I guess I fail to see why value created by player demand is different than value created by NPCs.

If you know, with certainty, that I can sell a katana I found on an orc for 33gp to an NPC... and you know, with certainty, that I can sell shackles I found for 33gp to a player... I just don't see how one of these things is creating wealth and the other is not.

One transaction facilitates the transfer of wealth from one person to another, while the other produces new wealth in the form of gold (or, the unwilling transfer of wealth, however you want to view it). This is the only issue that our rule covers.

The idea that shackles don't "do" anything is silly. As long as there is one player on the shard who values decoration, they do plenty. Likewise, I could argue that for a player like Chumbucket, a katana doesn't "do" anything. There is no threshold of lines of code under which an object does nothing, and above which it "does something". The utility of every object in this game is entirely dependent on player interest and interaction.

One has no mechanics that it can interact with, short of the ones that are allowed for any item that you can pick up, while others have a vast array of mechanics that it interacts with. This is a huge difference in utility, where one item's value is derived from its rarity and not from it's utility. It's aesthetic value that you point to is entirely tied to it's rarity, and has nothing to do with it's utility.

Finally, let me propose a thought experiment, now that vendors have a fixed purse with which to buy things. If NPCs on the shard can only buy, say, 50k gp worth of metal items and ingots per hour, than any ingots I mine after that hour are only able to be sold to other players. Thus they don't create NPC-sourced wealth, but rather they just facilitate existing wealth transfer between players. Right?

Actually, let's even take it one more step back. Ingots themselves are, essentially, never sold to NPCs. The items they create are essentially never sold to NPCs either. One gets more gold pieces by selling ingots and Blacksmith-made items to other players. So if I mine ingots myself, and throughout their existence they and their derivatives are only ever used by players, there is no wealth creation from me AFK mining them, right?

It is irrelevant that a player may choose not to sell those resources directly to an NPC. The fact that a player can do so, which is never possible with a rare, is the issue that's being addressed.

The notion of "increasing gold on the shard" also seems arbitrary, given that we know for certainty that items unable to be turned into gold will still have value.

The rule is not arbitrary at all because there is a distinct difference between an item that can be turned into new gold and one that can't. This difference, and the underlying implications, is what our rule addresses.

Finally, I find it rather unusual that my comment on the second page is still being ignored:

While I agree that this is an issue we should be working on mainly for mechanical accuracy reasons...