Excelsior

Hi Arden,

I hope you decide to allow it. I can see where you'd have to deal with it if someone visually overtopped another's house or something like that, but that's no different than dealing with folks who use the yard wand up against mountains to restrict travel.

Speaking only for myself, I think it would rob some of the joy from the game to decide that something is exploitive solely because it uses the game mechanics in an unexpected way. I hope you choose the other path.

At any rate, I won't create any more basements until I hear from you.

Regards,
Wil

Wil wrote:to decide that something is exploitive solely because it uses the game mechanics in an unexpected way

But... that's exactly what exploiting is.

Just because you can do something; it does not mean you should. That is pretty much what exploiting can boil down to. I do not believe this was an intended game mechanic; at least not on this shard; since you pay for Sinking Foundations to get Basements.

To your point Wil; some people do block travel with Yard wands in places and that is against the rules also. But staff need to know about it to do anything about it. I think in most cases it would take someone to report it.

I do find the yard want a great thing and it can certainly enhance house creation a lot. But those basements and sky towers of carpets are a bit of an eyesore and plain ugly; at least in my opinion. Ugly or not though; I think the flying basement thing is not an intended game mechanic.

Of course; this is all just my opinion =)

Animol wrote:

Wil wrote:to decide that something is exploitive solely because it uses the game mechanics in an unexpected way

But... that's exactly what exploiting is.

Howdy,

My opinion isn't the one that counts, but I respectfully disagree. Exploiting is circumventing something that the GMs unambiguously intended to require or prevent, such as glitching in to a restricted quest area or bypassing a monster intended to be defeated before you can get the treasure. It's a limited set of other very obvious behaviors too, like item duping: things that every reasonable person understands to be cheating.

Somewhere around here I should probably mention that I wasn't the first to come up with the HighCastle technique of adding floors to castles. From what I can tell reading Stratics, Pay UO officially supports extra floors up to Z=74 by raising stone blocks with the interior decorator. Caveat that the GMs will remove it if you obstruct someone else's house and they complain.

Anyway, I think it a mistake to take an expansive view that every player action not anticipated by the game's designer is an exploit. Such would demand that players express creativity only within safely pre-approved boundaries. I would be sad to see that happen here.

From my point of view the most important notion is this: Clever things that harm no one don't detract from the shard's ecosystem, they enhance it.

Regards,
Wil

Wil wrote:My opinion isn't the one that counts, but I respectfully disagree.

Your opinion won't change the definition of an exploit.

This is my take. Exploiting is using game mechanics not in the way they were intended. This he did. There is also a 2nd part of exploiting and that is gain or advantage. Personally I don't see where this gave him an unfair advantage so I say let him keep the basement.


Just my .02

I mean having to deal with the gold burn of all that tile placement and fiddling via etc..

seems like a big personal time sink for no real way of impacting other players

BELOW ground above ground I can see +a's point entirely

brhanson2 wrote:This is my take. Exploiting is using game mechanics not in the way they were intended. This he did. There is also a 2nd part of exploiting and that is gain or advantage. Personally I don't see where this gave him an unfair advantage so I say let him keep the basement.


Just my .02

That would be ok to say....But he is doing this to houses and selling them for extra gold for having them. Which is a gain by using an advantage.

Stephen wrote:That would be ok to say....But he is doing this to houses and selling them for extra gold for having them. Which is a gain by using an advantage.

He also explained exactly how he did it - meaning anyone who can be bothered to spend the time/money can also do it themselves. If they can’t be bothered with what sounds like a massive, tedious faff, they have the option to pay him - or someone else, for that matter - to do it for them. That’s just how services work.

The only issue for the GMs here is whether they want to allow this exploit - but if they do, this isn’t something that unfairly favours Wil, it’s something you yourself could do.

Thank you all for your opinions. This will be discussed, and a decision will be made. No sense arguing about it in the meantime. I am locking this thread.

+R

There was once a player with a similar design, and it was ruled that it's not allowed. Nice of you to leave a cut-out of the carpets so your north-western neighbour can see his house though