The difference between LWW and my request is that the LWW is for unsolicited works whereas I am asking for the devs to solicit.

Originally posted by Mogura
Also they need this stuff to be of a high standard... imagine if every teen here who thinks they\'re great at modelling decided to respond to the threads and submit their crappy models. It\'d be chaos...

The license is not the issue.  You are right that some \"teens\" or other inexperienced developers might submit to this forum, but remember
a) that\'s the whole point of PlaneShift -- open community development.  Everyone deserves a shot to participate.
b) even limited, low-quality *fill_in_item_here* has its place.  The devs might not be able to use the files, but they might be able to use the ideas.  Creativity is a resource, too.  We need to draw as much of it from the community as we can.

Originally posted by derwoodly
Realism has been thrown out as a reason for putting something in the game.  

I agree that this gameplay and setting is rooted in fantasy, but the whole reason for playing a game online (which includes PS) is to bend reality into a desirable form.  PS is inherently real and draws upon realism in most of its core.  Only the content/background are fictional, the rest is based on some dichotomy.  This is why you are dead wrong when you say that realism has been \"thrown out\" for a reason of adding things to the game -- why then are they working so hard to create \"realistic\" models?  If realism were truly thrown out, as you seem to believe, then the developers and PS community would be content with stick figures or some other less-real, less-pretty form.

We generally have two camps in this PvP and Pking subforum: those who want to model player interation like the Real world (or as close to it as possible), and those who want to model player interaction using childish rules.  Yes, they are childish, and no, I\'m not trolling.

My whole point is that it\'s the economy stupid.  Let go of all other pre-conceived notions about what this game should be, and start worrying about the in-game economy.  In order to create an enjoyable and vibrant game with realistic user interactions, we need to ensure an economic base exists.  This is my argument for a safe-zone in the cities and anarchy outside of the cities.  I am asking for a system to place value on goods and create a scarcity of resources.  This is simple economic reasoning that cannot be ignored.
 

Originally posted by derwoodly Even if it worked, it still would not be new.

I never said it was new.  I was simply adding my support to it using rational, logical, and very reasonable economic analysis.  Thinking outside of a childish box is an individual process, not a revolutionary idea.

Originally posted by derwoodly This is hardcore PvP.  Most do not like it.  It means the top 1% will be doing all the killing. For them it will be fun.  Every day they will get stronger and richer.   For the other 99% they will be very poor pesants.

You\'re absolutely right about this and about the effects of \"hardcore\" pking.  My solution is compromise, and with improvements like experience points for killing pkers (as has been suggested), this outcome will not happen.  In fact, I envision there being more players because of the extreme competition.  Counter-Strike, although not an mmorpg, has fierce matches with \"4337\" players dominating \"n00bs.\"  But do people stop playing CS because it is hard?  No, instead they attempt to master it and get better.  This is why CS is as popular as it is.  We cannot have a simple, feel-good, everyone-wins game.  There has to be losers in order for there to be winners.  Difficulty is the only way for PS to be successful.

Originally posted by derwoodly
Then the game will be truly dead.

We both can agree that this would be an undesirable outcome.

Question:

Has it been discuessed whether there will be property (land) for private ownership in PS?  I\'ve seen it mentioned elsewhere (and here, here, and here) for housing.  I would imagine that people don\'t need actual \"rooms\" per se, but more lockboxes to store items.

Perhaps people would pay rent for these lockboxes?  The revenue would go toward economic development in other areas (if owned by the state) or to private individuals.

I truly believe that we should develop the economy first, and then the social elements of spells and weapons will have a way of falling into place.

After seeing all of the threads, I would like to add my 2 cents:

I believe that dueling must exist and should be consent-based.  Everyone should agree that two people who want to kill each other should be allowed to do so.  And because of this, the dueling question should be left alone.
 
However, I firmly believe that cities should be safe-zones -- they should be designed to promote free and unfettered trade as much as possible.  Allowing any sort of damage to a player within a city will hurt trade and ultimately hinder the success of PS.  The two issues may seem unconnected, but people generally spend more money when they feel safe than when they feel scared.  Hence, cities should be safe.

Where I differ from most people is my belief that outside of a city gate should be a free-for-all.  That is, everyone can hurt everyone.  When people die, whatever they were carrying is also fair game, and the dead players should return empty-handed to a spawn point inside a city.  To prevent intelligent players from losing everything, everyone should have access to a black-box within a city to place items for safe-keeping.  Hence, good players will only carry what they need.  This would also add a level of challenge to the game.

But won?t this idea also hinder trade outside of a city?  I think that?s fair to assume.  But if we place the only supply of valuable raw resources outside of a city, then we have made those resources scarce.  By scarce, I mean that it will cost effort, time, or money (for bodyguards) to get resources.  This may seem absolutely insane, but please remember that we are also looking to build an economy within PS.  Basic economic theory teaches that in order for an economy to function, resources must be scarce (read this if has been a while since econ101).  We can debate the morality of PvP and PKing all we want, but the ultimate issue is creating an economy that will support a society (because societies build around economies, not the other way around).  Basic economics dictates that resources must be scarce, and we need to do more than just have random placement of gems.  We need to make them difficult to acquire.  This would place value on them and the products they buy.  These products will in turn place value on our society, and then we would have a great game.

A second reason (if that one was not enough) for having anarchy outside of a city (which should make intuitive sense because only a city should be civilized) is that the role of guilds and certain professions will have increased importance.  Guilds would have to figure out a way to get resources into the city safely.  Doing so would spur economic growth in very important sectors like mercenaries, body guards, curriers, etc.  Why are these sectors important?  Because they drive demand for weapons, spells, and other quest-oriented skills.  And by allowing the demand for these products to flourish, we would promote the very heart of the game, skills and quests.

If my 2 cents was not clear, I support a safe-zone within a city and anarchy outside of a city.

A Cal State professor has delved into the topic.  See this article to read an informed opinion that supports what I am saying.