UO Second Age

Mikel123 wrote: 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.

Lol!

Now you're an expert:)

Ahahah!

I'll take credit for that.

Kaivan wrote:It's aesthetic value that you point to is entirely tied to it's rarity, and has nothing to do with it's utility.

Well that's just not true. Otherwise, every single rare and semi-rare of equal rarity would be valued the same. In CUB, why did more people choose dragon statues than gazer statues?

Kaivan wrote: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.

Right, and the "underlying implications" are what I think is silly. I'm not arguing whether or not your rule addresses this distinct difference; of course it does, since the distinct difference is a part of the rule.

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

There's not much to talk about here. I think everyone agrees it should be worked on for mechanical reasons. My disappointment surrounds the policy reasons.

Mikel123 wrote:

Kaivan wrote:It's aesthetic value that you point to is entirely tied to it's rarity, and has nothing to do with it's utility.

Well that's just not true. Otherwise, every single rare and semi-rare of equal rarity would be valued the same. In CUB, why did more people choose dragon statues than gazer statues?

Because at that point in time, the rarity was a non-issue, and aesthetics was not tied to rarity. However, since the item is no longer freely available, the rarer statue is likely to have a higher value, due the fact that it too carries an aesthetic value. This may be overcome by a much higher aesthetic value for a different statue, where the more aesthetically pleasing statue may be twice as common, but 50 times as aesthetically pleasing as the rarer statue. However, this doesn't invalidate the point. The fact that the statue has any value at all is tied to its rarity, and while its aesthetic value can affect the price, this is possible only because the statue is rare. As an example, if the aesthetic value of a thatched roof cottage was valued at a 1 billion to 1 ratio against all other small house types, the value would no different than a scenario where the aesthetic values were flipped. This is because the item is not rare, thus rarity empowers aesthetics as a way of affecting price.

Mikel123 wrote:

Kaivan wrote: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.

Right, and the "underlying implications" are what I think is silly. I'm not arguing whether or not your rule addresses this distinct difference; of course it does, since the distinct difference is a part of the rule.

Well, you're free to feel that the underlying implications are silly, and we'll have to agree to disagree on this subject.

Mikel123 wrote:

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

There's not much to talk about here. I think everyone agrees it should be worked on for mechanical reasons. My disappointment surrounds the policy reasons.

Policy decisions won't be necessary if the mechanical issues can be addressed. Not to mention, any policy decision would be overbearing and ineffective, due to the fact that it would essentially punish standing around in certain locations.

Kaivan wrote:Policy decisions won't be necessary if the mechanical issues can be addressed.

Hopefully the mechanical issues will be addressed.

Kaivan wrote:Not to mention, any policy decision would be overbearing and ineffective, due to the fact that it would essentially punish standing around in certain locations.

Well, we all know miners aren't punished for standing around in certain locations as long as they're actually playing the game and not AFK.

AFK Ingot Gatherers:

1. Concerned citizen reports player in a trance near a mountain.
2. GM responds and talks to player that appears to be in a trance and gets no response.
3. GM watches player gather ore.
4. GM jails player.

AFK Rare Gatherers:

1. Concerned citizen reports player in a trance near a rare spawn.
2. GM responds and talks to player that appears to be in a trance and gets no response.
3. GM pulls Rare X out of backpack and sets it down.
4. GM watches player gather rare.
5. GM jails player.

There is no overbearing difference in policing policies. GM's could just carry a bag of the spawning rares in case they didn't want to type [add SomeRare and click on the ground.


Regardless, I hope the mechanical issues get addressed so this entire discussion on the Policy Decision is irrelevant.

-L/S

Rare Gatherers are using a new, illegal, 3rd party program. Razor cannot monitor a specific tile for changes to artwork.