I think the big problem in this thread is the blockchain itself, the whole conversation would be much easier if we just talked about decentralized mmorpgs.

Decentralized mmorpgs are hard enough to do right when one entity (company, individual, etc.) owns and operates all of the servers. I grimace at the thought of trying to pull that off when there is no single trusted entity (a base assumption of virtually all decentralized systems at some level or another). Literally every single interaction that's trivial to get right on a single-server MMO is 10x (or more) harder to get right when multiple servers are used to scale a single game world, and multiply by 10x or 100x again when those multiple servers can't be trusted. You also get into some weird questions with decentralized designs that don't come up when you assume a single controlling entity. For example, decentralization usually implies no single owner/authority (and most decentralized computer systems assume that at some level in their design), but mmorpgs virtually always have a single controlling entity. So what happens if there's a conflict between, say, 55% of the controlling population and Atomic Blue? Depending on the decentralized design, that might be enough to convince the computers that the 55% are "right" and that the game should follow that path - but Atomic Blue holds the rights and intellectual property of PlaneShift, so they're the owners and thus have the right to all final decisions. That's one of the easiest problems I can think of solving, too - when you assume that some of the people holding the keys to portions of the decentralized system might be willing to budge things around to cheat (duplicate rare items, increase currency balance/stats, etc.), it gets reaaaaaaally nasty.

Blockchain is just mediasexy word, it's not that amazing at all people just hype it for no specific reason (i guess it's cause bitcoin or something). It either dies in few years or sticks to some communities to plague the world.

I'm Ecthion Felagund and I approve this message. Vote Ecthion Felagund for no more blockchain! (Ok, maybe not entirely - it's a fascinating technology that has a lot of possibilities in a few areas... but I agree with you that it's freakishly overhyped.)

Mishka, I think most of us here have been at the point where everything seems to merit a snap and a snarl some time in our lives (I certainly have). Good on you for realizing where you were at and making the changes to not only better yourself but also to repair the bridges you realized you burned. It takes a strong person to realize wrongdoing and an even stronger one to publicly apologize for it. I apologize to you for the part I played in a few unsavory exchanges involving you over the years.

Lol, Rigwyn...

I have to say I think the law is inappropriate. Like Rigwyn pointed out, what's it trying to accomplish? Botters (and what's technically "botting") ought to be a matter of policy for each individual game. If an unpaid game has a problem with botters then its just a matter of irrate players who are pissed off at the botters. The government has no business imposing draconian fines and prison sentences on narcissistic @$$3$ whose only "crime" is pissing off other players. This is the real world, not kindergarten. On the other hand, if it's a paid game and it has a botting problem that causes players to lose real world money, they don't have to play it. The company that owns the game will deal with the problem, or they'll lose business (and risk bankruptcy). Let the free markets settle that one. This is a matter of business and dealing with jerks, not a matter of crime. Besides that, any punishment ought to fit the crime. Unless a cheater cost someone $40k and five years out of their life, then the government has no business imposing a punishment that harsh. I think this law is just another example of "I'm pissed! Let's use the government to MAKE everyone stop pissing me off!"

As far as PS goes, I've heard of two different things called "botting": using an actual modified client/bot program, and training while afk. As far as the second goes... I think it's silly to discipline players for it and even sillier to call it "botting." It's not using a bot, it's using the mechanics that were designed into the game for the purpose that they were put there: training your character. As far as it being unfair, with the current damage rates on dummies, you might get 20 - 30 minutes of grinding before the dummy dies and you have to come back and start a fresh attack. That's not giving anyone much of a training advantage at all. If you could get an hour or two out of a dummy then maybe it's a different story. As far as dealing with actual botters... 

I think the new system is wonderful. It adds a very natural feel to progression, which was lacking before. It makes no sense to have to go "buy" a new lesson to advance skills - speaking as an RL swordsman, a person can become quite skilled simply by developing the intuition needed to fight well, without ever having a single formal lesson. The same is true for crafting/cooking skills - they naturally develop. The new system reflects this quite well, and I think the weapon training is well balanced at the moment.

Accumulating PPs to train anything was a major weakness of the old system, since massive amounts needed to be acquired and this was painfully time consuming. The expenses also got horrendous very quickly, making it difficult to even steadily train a single skill at a time. With the new system, the PPs needed for stats seem to well balanced. It lets a new player get some training in reasonably quickly, but doesn't leave a gaping hole for instant-max characters.

I only have two comments about the new system's balance. A: Ranged training is still painfully slow, even at low levels. I think that the amount of practice needed per level should be slightly reduced. It should still be slower than other skills, but not by as wide a gap as it is now. B: Armor progresses too quickly. Considering how tough the npcs are now (A Cutthroat does a lot of damage to me with 50Q MA, maxed skill, fully defensive stance) this isn't too big of an imbalance, but I think it should be slowed a little bit. Also, since real armor is more of a on/off thing rather than a skill acquired, I don't think that being able to train armor fast is that big of an imbalance. Besides that, from a pure mechanics standpoint, if someone maxes armor but doesn't take the time to train a weapon, all he'll be is a quite harmless but slow to damage opponent.

Overall, I'm very pleased with the new system. The only thing I would suggest changing at all is the practice rate for armor and ranged weapons.