A Process for removing someone's beaconed plots

If people’s plots are being unbeaconed there need to be clear AND CONSISTENT requirements as wellas a process for this, as it presenrs a hazard to concepts like “sandbox”, “persistent world”, and the business model of boundless.

Probably at a minimum this should include:

  1. Log checks, at a minimum communications and plot dates.

  2. Contact attempts

  3. Arbitration. Let’s not forget that land speculation and resource camping are basically advertised aspects of the game. And conservation is a surprisingly common activity. One person’s future road is no less worthy than another person’s future castle, is it?

  4. Scheduled removal. If there is one player-placed brick of sand in those plots there needs to be an opportunity to retrieve it.

Obviously if there is a breakdown at any point after item 2 the devs may eventually need to take action without contact. Is this a thirty day window or do you want your beacons deleted because family problems got you AFK for a week?

A hold on beacon refueling or gleam club renewals until devs get a response? That sounds reasonable to me but apparently it could take 2 years.

Sorting this out for the long term is probably more productive than arguing out a particular case on the forums. Some of the things being posted are silly and I’m tempted to argue over other people’s drama, so I’m sure others are doing the same.

2 Likes

I honestly hate any idea that allows some sort of way to force the unclaiming of plots or de-beaconing of an area.

Either the beacon uses up all its fuel and is reclaimed by the Wild or it stays fueled.

What you’re suggesting sounds like something that is undermining the purpose behind Gleam Club and Beacon Fuel.

I get that this thread was sparked and prompted from the Ultima Guild HQ thread about undeveloped plots but this suggestion is going to upset people who want to take very long periods of time away from the game. Periods of time spanning as much as 6 months or more. Someone should be able to do that if they want to and have that option with Gleam Club. Same thing with just using Beacon Fuel.

Underdeveloped plots around settlements and hubs isn’t what the root problem is. Lack of content that incentives and motivates a player to log in and play is. We don’t have it and even if you love building you’re going to get bored of that at some point. If we had those incentives and motivations then those players would probably develop those plots more. Even if someone takes a 3 or 4 months away from the game to play other games or even has some family obligations, that person shouldn’t be punished by having their plots taken away from them just because it’s in a location next to a hub or settlement.

Extremely hard no on this. My suggestion is to revisit this at a later time when the game has been developed more with the inclusion of a lot more game features and mechanics that promote consistent player retention each day coupled with positive and noticeable player population growth.

13 Likes

Private servers would be a good way to limit others’ ability to invade your personal space. I don’t think that’s being worked on though, they may have dropped the idea.

2 Likes

Part of the problem was also that our location lists used to be capped at 50. People plopped down a bunch of 1-plot beacons before patch 200(?) that have since been untouched or underdeveloped in order to have a location saved near hubs. It’s been a super slow process since to reclaim them for usable land. I have 2 near my main base where I’m like… “idk, am I about to end up with a gleam tower to sky block in the middle of my yard?” haha

Obviously we can’t say who will and will not use these beacons for sure, but most of the 1-plot 0 prestige beacons near player builds I’m willing to bet could be removed with no fuss. The location remains saved on the player list until they delete the entry iirc

1 Like

There are 48 planets currently. Go find another place to build and develop. This game more than allows people to build new centers of traffic and interest.

There is no reason to remove any plot beyond clear griefing which at this point was defined by the developers. We should not be trying to develop a way to manage “unused plots” because we already have clear rules.

People pushing to remove plots are just trying to take advantage of a location that is popular. Go create your own popular location or push the developers to make content and things that put pressure on popular places that make them harder to keep popular and allow for other ones to become popular. Fix the core issues in the game not minor issues.

5 Likes

Some people seem to think I’m advocating for removing plots.

The devs are removing plots, on a personal, case by case basis.

There needs to be a clear policy.

This should only happen based on griefing or breaking TOS via beacon reporting or other notification. If it is not, then I strongly agree we need policy clarifications.

There already is one in place. The devs already do get involved in specific instances. It’s why they have a support email and why you can directly message a developer on these forums in private. In a lot of cases @james looks into the matter himself and helps get it resolved to the best of his ability. All the plots that you’ve labelled in images in the Ultima Guild HQ thread about plots aren’t griefing and aren’t violating any sort of rules in the game.

Besides, a lot of guilds who want to have an HQ that doesn’t deal with this problem will most likely get a rental world when they’re released and if server owners have the ability to decide who can and can’t build on the world, it will mean unwanted plot claims won’t be a thing. So in the grand scheme and future scope of the game, this whole “issue” is very much a non-issue.

I’m not sure who you think I am.

I don’t want those plots removed. I also don’t have one single plot on finata.

That’s why I’m not posting in that thread.

I also don’t want the plots removed in Arie. I don’t have one single plot there, and I’m not posting in that thread.

I don’t care to argue whether or not plots “should” be removed from players. It’s happening, it’s going to continue to happen.

I’m very uncomfortable and not happy to build today based on some of the comments that I see and while I trust that James would try to do the best as he sees fit on a case by case basis - there needs to be a procedure.

A process, not a policy.

Someone can take your land in real life, too. But you don’t just have a justice of the peace show up, listen to your sob story, and decide on the spot whether or not to take your neighbor’s title to their land.

There is a process.

EDIT: I wont’ bother editing my earlier post where I did carelessly use the word “policy”. The policy will always require a final human judgement it probably doesn’t need to be any more detailed than it is.

In the cases they’re removing plots it’s because they’re breaking the CoC/ToS (not sure which), and we already have rules in there for the cases the devs will interfere. Mainly griefing. Do we need more?

1 Like

Here is my simple suggestion regarding those 1-2 plot areas that go unused:

Basically, if a plot has less than 10k pristigue and less than 10 plots total, another player has the option to request ownership of that land.

If that owner accepts or does not respond for a week, than ownership gets transfered. If they decline, they have a 1-week grade period before anyone else can request ownership, giving them time to claim more or expand further.

I believe this is the best way to keep people happy - chances are its unlikely someone plans to build somewhere if they only have a few plots down, so its unlikely to negatively affect anyone.

So I have to prestige bomb my personal portal plots or risk them being snatched up if I don’t log in weekly?

2 Likes

It shouldn’t be hard at all to reach 10k prestige, and its even easier to have the plot reach 11 plots.

Ok so, I have a lot of personal mines where the portal leads to just a small hut near a hub so I can open and close the portal from the hub side easily if I’m not going to use the mine for 2+ days. These use a total of 1 plot usually, since that’s all I need to get a portal up. I’d hate to use up extra vertical plots just to comply with the rule, I’m already starving for plots because of my project :D. One of them is on top of water as well, so it wouldn’t just be “dig down and gleambomb it”.

Also how would this rule be presented to players that don’t read the forums? I’m just pointing out that there are use cases for small low prestige plots.

I suppose the in game announcements, but i can see where your coming from.

I just really wish there was a way for cities to deal with those people who only have 1 or 2 plots with no real intention to build on them.

Helping to get in contact with the owner would be better than forcibly removing the plots from the owner would be better imo. “Request contact with beacon owner” that then sends an email to them with the text you entered maybe? Idk just spitballing, since I know those plots can cause a lot of pain so I do understand the wish.

2 Likes

This isn’t needed, isn’t workable, and nor is it fair.

5 Likes

Id argue it is quite needed, is workable, and is more than fair.

I think the most problem is to be able to reach the owner while they are inactive. Some button on the beacon owner to be able to send a message that they receive an e-mail notification.

or maybe something like @Vansten mentionned but a bit less drastic. A way to contest a beacon and if you get no response(e-mial notification) from the owner under around a month, it remove the beacon and regenerates the plots.

2 Likes

I accept that some players would clearly welcome your idea, rightly or wrongly, but it’s still extremely unfair. If you changed the mediation time to 2 or 3 months, and also added the criteria that the beacon hasn’t been visited by the owner in 3 months, and doesn’t apply to any existing beacons (so people away from game for months aren’t penalised), then it becomes fairer.
Still not needed though, as there’s a perfectly good mechanic in place.

1 Like