Purity of forageable items

[Potjeh]

There's already too much incentive to slaughter your neighbours, we don't need any more.

[DangerousLee]

There's already too much incentive to slaughter your neighbours, we don't need any more.

It simply is not. If everyone at the moment are spamming agriculture, there is an obvious reason for it and that is because it allows to raise your humours beyond what is actually possible to do by foraging. That would still be the case in the system proposed since the high base value foods are based on agriculture. (A 100% Berry won't help you beat a 50% pumkin pie or other high-end dish).

I think most of the experienced players out here are worrying villager murdering a bit too much. Maybe that's because the current system makes you want to do exactly that (no trade incentive whatsoever). Any other player you cross in the game in the current system is at best a threat and that has to be changed. Asking them to get you high purity forageable food that you would then buy would make them a lot more useful alive than dead.

[Potjeh]

No, you'd buy high purity foragables from people who live nowhere near you and thus aren't lowering the purity of your forage.

[Dallane]

They were removed not because of valuable areas but because you could forage for higher purity things and get 50-100 of each humor every few hours

I do not see a single problem there. The purity index can rise very slowly (it needs to be balanced) and I see no problem in people having 50-100 after a while (2-3 weeks), the food that really pushes you up in the 100s (and up) are the ones with high base numbers and those are obtained by agriculture only. Your point has more to do with the balancing of the gluttony mechanics (I posted there too and the system I propose could very well deal with higher purity forageable items as well as the ones produced by agriculture) http://forum.salemthegame.com/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=2959&sid=6e7392715587419f24925f5da89c19f4&start=20. You have to think of the system as a whole and not just fit this new feature in the current system, one would have to adjust the gluttony system.

The problem wasn't the glutton system it was us hitting 200-300 humors in a day or 2

[darnokpl]

The problem wasn't the glutton system it was us hitting 200-300 humors in a day or 2

Yes, but back then "guard bug" helped a lot to get 200 stats
I hope purity nodes won't come back ever, they were evil of W1 close beta, average purity node 4.0 could give you witch hats with +40 BB!!!

[Dallane]

The problem wasn't the glutton system it was us hitting 200-300 humors in a day or 2

Yes, but back then "guard bug" helped a lot to get 200 stats
I hope purity nodes won't come back ever, they were evil of W1 close beta, average purity node 4.0 could give you witch hats with +40 BB!!!

lol i never knew of a guard bug. i would deplete the 3 purity we had then switch to the 2 and rotate depending on who was grinding at the time. stupid potjeh ruined it all.

[Potjeh]

[DangerousLee]

No, you'd buy high purity foragables from people who live nowhere near you and thus aren't lowering the purity of your forage.

Who said that they must live near or far from you. When referring to noobs you would have to slaughter nearby I though they would consist of hermits since they are noobs and therefore have no real homestead of permanent place to live. And I agree that in the current system, anyone can trade with anyone at Boston without any trouble because of the teleport function.

In the current system, the teleport is essential because there are no other ways for fast travel or transporting some quantity of goods across distance in a useful way. That is why I think the teleport (with inventory full) should be removed at a later stage in the game when more transport options will be available. Otherwise you won't see towns and people trading anywhere else than Boston. This feature will be discussed in another post of mine about the economics. You have to keep in mind that the purity of forageables is not a system that comes alone and that with my other suggestions it will make more sense.

[DangerousLee]

They were removed not because of valuable areas but because you could forage for higher purity things and get 50-100 of each humor every few hours

I do not see a single problem there. The purity index can rise very slowly (it needs to be balanced) and I see no problem in people having 50-100 after a while (2-3 weeks), the food that really pushes you up in the 100s (and up) are the ones with high base numbers and those are obtained by agriculture only. Your point has more to do with the balancing of the gluttony mechanics (I posted there too and the system I propose could very well deal with higher purity forageable items as well as the ones produced by agriculture) http://forum.salemthegame.com/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=2959&sid=6e7392715587419f24925f5da89c19f4&start=20. You have to think of the system as a whole and not just fit this new feature in the current system, one would have to adjust the gluttony system.

The problem wasn't the glutton system it was us hitting 200-300 humors in a day or 2

If you could hit 200-300 humours in a day, then it is definitely a gluttony system problem. The rate of transfer of food you eat to your maximum can be tuned in such a way that it does not happen. I agree that in the current gluttony system it would lead to something like that, hence you have to change the gluttony system to adjust things up. The Gain Factor in http://forum.salemthegame.com/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=2959&sid=6e7392715587419f24925f5da89c19f4&start=20 is exactly the kind of adjustable parameter that would do the job.

[Potjeh]

No, I'm referring to anyone weaker than you trying to settle anywhere remotely close to you. You simply can't allow settlements to gain a foothold in your area, you have to wipe them out with extreme prejudice as soon as you find them.

The point is your idea is discouraging peaceful coexistence of players, and what we really need in this game is incentives to be friendly to neighbours.