Talk:LOTR Mod Official Server/@comment-33763020-20181120094808/@comment-33763020-20181121111052

Joetatoe, thank you for the fast and elaborate response! I hope I haven't offended anyone with my subjective evaluation of the current state of affairs, since a sentence with "interesting, but welcome.." seems to indicate that I may have hit some sensitive notes?.. I tried to be fully objective of my first impressions on playability and immersion, the only sentence related to frustrated kids is legit if one reads in-game chat or asks a polite question to find oneself in kindergarten again real quick.. (Luckily chat can be switched off.)

Your answers are good guidelines how to carry on, much appreciated. Some clarifications and further questions in case your time allows, I have taken the time to elaborate on the trading aspect, since it seems quite corrupted to me:

1. Lag seems a stretch, since I spent hours down there, including more server restarts. The first hour or so I did not see a single dwarf. It's a mine. Even then, once they started appearing in numbers, no trader appeared, hence my inquiry whether spawn of regular dwarves vs traders is set differently and whether the former is fully omitted. Meanwhile I luckily found smithies, so at least those are not gone. (PS: I haven't noticed any fast-travel cooldown timer differences to the singleplayer version, I suppose these are purely faction related?)

2. Do you mean that you also changed item trade from individual cool-down to server-side? I am not aware of details as I do not know the difference between server-mechanics vs single-player, but it is not clear to me how this change solved any issues, without creating a bigger one: the regular cooldown timer by itself prevents a player from buying/selling too much of anything, thus preventing him from getting too rich through selling or devaluating (rare) items' value in case he's rich already. It is a genius (utopian) method of controlling the economy and creates equal opportunity for all, unlike real life supply/demand. The benefit of player-based cooldown is that any player can make deals, irrespective of whether an other person visited the trader before that. Changing the individual cooldown to a collective one however (if I understood well that that was the change made) means that if a faction continues with appropriating trade through that trader (not by taking him hostage, but by simply excessive trade with him and depleting cooldown constantly), they will constantly block trade, as trading becomes a consecutive process instead of a parallel one and newcomers will never have a moment when trade on an item is open due to the wealth of the established factions, so they basically get pushed to the end of the line. While I understand it is more realistic in terms of supply/demand, in game terms it makes no sense, as a trader should not discriminate between buyers/sellers, when the result would be no chance for newcomers to build an economy.

Example: I work for hours to make a decent wheatfarm and collect a few haybales to sell and buy other goods. Individual cooldown would mean I can walk in and sell a few stacks of hay, if it is my first time with the trader. Currently I cannot sell a single haybale however, as the rich player who has built out an empire in months, will have blocked trade on that item due to the server cooldown. I would have to wait for hours perhaps to get a chance to make a few coins (and wait at the trader idly, risking my life), so obviously my time is better spent with questing. The rich player walks in however after a few hours with an army if needed (makes sure a faction member is nearby for the timer to cool down or the trader is near/at his base) and sells 9 stacks of haybales at 9x64x6 coin = 3456 coin. We all know how long that takes to cool down.. This creates a monopolistic situation instead of free trade and is the definition of hoarding. It does not even create the chance for newcomers of building an economy, in spite of having the same items to sell and putting in the same work. Wild capitalism at its best in Middle-earth :). Yesterday I found a dwarven smithy "off the beaten path", that had a mattock blanked out which costs 452 coins when I waited for it to be available again. Seems quite the amount for any mattock, let alone to buy it in numbers to have it blanked out. It's a good indication that, given the hay bale example, the cashflow of the rich basically blocks item supply as well, next to item demand.

3. Interesting rule. How do you define "intent of use"?...You can hardly track the time spent by a player at a blocked object, but even if you could, it would be hard to define. Fact is though, that in 90% of the time I spent travelling, structures with traders were mostly banner protected, with closed doors and no access to the trader, despite the server rule. Except one occasion with a whole fort where the player did not place enough banners and there was a "window of opportunity" ;), but that seems more the exception than the rule and clumsiness, not well intended. In 99% of the time, no player was even near these structures and traders sealed off, so basically all occasions were blocking free access. It basically forces me to apply the same technique of finding a trader and immediately blocking him off, otherwise I would be the benevolent but foolish idealist who believes in opportunity for all. (Hence my not too positive review of ethics of the majority on the server, by the way..)

In the example of the dwarven smithy in point 2, I bannered the smithy and made sure to leave the door open to make the trader accessible, only to prevent that nobody banners it and leaves the door CLOSED for trade. My experience so far however is that most players do not do this, but simply block off the trader, depriving others from playing the game as intended, basically forming a boys' club. Since this rule is clearly not enforced, I am in a moral clinch on whether to adapt to the general server behaviour (and risk getting banned for something most players are clearly not banned for) or remain a foolish idealist and not protect anything, just to be blocked off from one moment to the other at the whim of someone who doesn't give it a second thought.. A bit of clarity in the "appropriation" process would be of much help on how to proceed.

4. Thanks, good to know! I read in the release wiki that banners protect against explosions "with the exception of throwing exploding termites within an area you have access to", but I take your word for it that no explosions will destroy my base. Sealing up a base though is tricky, as I simply jumped the fence of a Rohan fort to look around, but I get your meaning ;).

5. Thanks, I am using Optifine, will check whether it offers addition settings I overlooked.