Udgard

Hmm, does it differ based on browsers (I'm on chrome)? The #5 for me only shows the #entry one. Clicking it just brings me straight to the post without any popups.

How do you get the ?p= line? When I manually change the http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/8052-conspiracy-theories/#entry89611 to http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/8052-conspiracy-theories/?p=89611, it redirects to http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/8052-conspiracy-theories/page-3#entry89611 which does point out to the correct post. So perhaps the problem is only with the #entry lines, and the ?p= lines are working perfectly fine.

I get the link with the #entry line as well when using the post number on the top right side (which is the only way I currently know of - how do we get the p= ones?). Funny thing is, sometimes they do work, sometimes they don't. For example: http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/8052-conspiracy-theories/#entry89611 (from one post after DD's link) leads to first page. However the post you linked: http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/14231-destruction-of-alts/#entry137640 leads properly to the post Perhaps there is something to do with the thread length?

So, mind explaining what exactly happened? You made a few topics about your problem with chewett for everyone to see, but none of them explains what happened from your point of view, other than a few mentions here and there and that would only make people guess.

HBD!

There's a pro and con to both options, but somehow I find myself liking the old system better. While transparency is in general good, I do wonder how that would work to people trying to "neutralize" a post's reputation? I know I've found myself often in a situation where I don't find anything good about a post, but I don't find it to warrant a neg rep either. If I see that post being neg-repped, I would sometimes positive rep it to make it neutral. With transparency, would this show up as if I pos-repped it? If so, that would bring a totally different impression to what I intended. And in response to some of DD's statements: 2. They do. I've done it myself, and I've seen negative post regulars get positive rep for (good) posts. 3. Again, same as above.

Congrats Chew!

Saying I do not want one if it was offered to me would be a lie, but I'm not sure I would go out of my way to get one.

Yes, since I've kept the stuff to 66% for weeks back then, then people started harvesting not only below 50%, but actually depleting stuff. There was no point trying to keep stuff to 66% when it barely goes to 5% each day after it was depleted.

Way back then, I think I had. Someone else was depleting the resources despite pleas not to, so I depleted the location in my land by myself, under agreement from the king back then rather than have the resource be depleted by someone outside the land (I was the only lorerootian with an independent water harvester back then, and there weren't any shared tools back then yet, only independent ones and the dowser's items).

Normally no - I prefer to leave resources at optimum regen value (2/3). But if the location is being purposely depleted by someone else, I might deplete it myself rather than wait only for others to deplete it.

Yes - there's enough for each type of resource. More type of resources are definitely a good direction to go though.

Yes. I'd have to say that memory stones are the most useful resource, and their limited supply is bothering me.

Yes - because I had the time and will to collect it. Could be no right now since I don't have anymore drive to collect and prefer not to deplete when I can, but that's a matter of choice and not an actual cannot, I suppose.

Yes. Back then just because it was something new to play with, and then because I wanted to gather as absurd a number of water I could.

Just noting that the poll is not there. You might've forgotten to put it up

An illusion.

Not to mention, people used to go all the way to rusties just expecting.. rusties. Then Mur threw an extra gold coin for just 1 credit at the end of each shop. If you look at it that way, gold coins should only cost 1 credit. In the end, it's the market that is determining the value, really.

That would affect bursts as well though..

Yeah, I thought that was the point of the suggestion XD To make the NPCs beatable if the lower MPs learn more about combat and spend the time to achieve it. I asked because I thought you meant there was a philosophy change behind that

Just wondering, why do you think they are meant to be unbeatable now? I know it was possible back then without any creature transfers (willow's being definitely an easy one, while LR's required much more knowledge and planning but certainly doable), so unless I missed something, why would that change now?

Thanks Now I need to find out just how much was changed >.> *goes to email council for a changelog*

After re-reading Krioni's post... If we want to go with an equal amount of effort for both sides, I would think that an item that 'locks' a single resource per use from being harvested is the most appropriate. (With multiple uses and a lot of effort and dedication, one can theoretically even prevent any resource from a scene to be harvested at all.) Then both sides will be in an even situation..

I don't see a connection between harvesting and disrespecting the land.