It is off topic, because this thread isn’t about how to remove plots. Nor should it be, IMO. It’s about what kind of step should be taken by devs in order to mediate extraordinary conflict of plots, how to resolve it, and how to be clear and fair in the ToS about it.
2 Likes
I have a couple of beacons underground which I use as mining bases. Why should I have to waste 10 plots or make them > 10k prestige, just to solve your non existent problem?
6 Likes
Removing plots is one such step that could be taken to remove a conflict of plots. Regardless of if you agree or disagree with my idea, its still well on topic as a suggestion.
Because it is quite a prevalent problem when managing cities or other areas - if your playing regularly than spending 5s to press “no” should someone request an ownership shouldn’t be an issue regardless.
Again, you’re talking about how to remove plots. We’re talking about transparency in the fairness of the ToS. Two completely different topics.
EDIT: There is no formula that would be fair for removing plots. It should always be a case-by-case situation, which is why communication is so important. That includes communication between individuals involved, as well as communication to the larger community so that people do not feel like the devs are handing down punishment whenever they feel like it.
1 Like
Let us agree to disagree - in any case, i do agree that more transparency is always a good thing, and do fully support that too.
1 Like
Isn’t this clear, transparent and fair?
1 Like
River Town needs Help! Support
Assuming that you had copied in the relevant terms of service, and not a link to a player call for forum drama - this is a clear statement of policy.
What steps are taken to determine “intent”?
What steps are taken to encourage or enforce player resolution if both parties appear to be acting in good faith?
Who gets possession of the unbeaconed plots? Another random who happens to be online when the dev makes it by to unbeacon? The neighbors? The person who filed the complaint?
The policy on even having a dev address this is clear. The thread you link also includes james responding to some “hypothetical” scenarios. And it seems that the current process is 100% case-by-case and may be as simple as any normal human’s reaction to a well crafted complaint.
Beaconing a plot “just because” is a perfectly acceptable game mechanic, and as you point out the policy on this matter is clear. I’ve made efforts to discourage that discussion here.
As regards transparency, no there is not currently any transparency regarding response, timelines, or enforcement on these issues. The information is, by definition, not public and I wouldn’t ask them to release the data of how they have handled previous case by case complaints.
I do feel that there should be some baseline expectations. Acknowledging that contact was attempted according to established timelines is different from revealing the content of those communications.
30 day inactivity requirements are normal, but boundless literally sells the right to bypass that.
As to the third point, It seems you’re asking whether or not deleting the plots is fair, and that’s a topic for the thread you copied that text from.
The process used to determine intent and/or remove the players plots isn’t mentioned in that text and I’m not currently sure whether it has been/will be fair in any given case. it would be something that I would consider none of my business, but I’m literally paying to participate so yeah - I have concerns regarding player-initiated disputes being arbitrated in a clear process.
I’m not concerned with devs going on a witch hunt either, tbh. If the impression I’m getting from people here is correct, the devs probably deal with so many people trying to get other people’s plots they don’t have time to go looking for random stuff to delete.
A clear process protects the enforcers, too.
Valid points, but as it currently stands only plain griefing is considered a valid reason to remove someone’s plots. The exact guidelines might be good to state somewhere more official than a random forum topic though, what’s considered griefing etc. That’s what I understand you’re after and I agree. But to make it a whole process doesn’t sound good, if somebody is griefing, I wouldn’t want to wait for a time period for the person to possibly answer the inquiries.
A week before someone can swoop in and steal reserved land?! Sometimes I don’t log in for a week even when I’m active. I disagree with the process entirely anyway but this specific timescale is just silly. If something like this went live I’d steal and deface all the beacons I could just to show how unfair it is.
6 Likes
@schasm raises a good point. The suggested process could lead to even more damaging griefing than what we have now. Just wait for players to go on a break or over holidays and times when they might be too busy and steal the beacons out from under them. Sounds like a great way to gather resources and grief other players.
I am afraid I will agree that there really does not need to be any change to the process. I think allowing the developers the freedom to do a case by case analysis versus allowing players to decide when beacons should be removed is best. I do not think the developers should have to spend time to layout some complex “plot resolution process”. Do we want them developing or having to be involved in some long drawn out process over every (some legitimate and a lot not so legitimate) complaint or developing and improving the game?
3 Likes
Leave things as they are…
9 Likes
If it was as simple as you word this, then I might tend to agree. However, it’s still unfair to the player who is busy, sick or away from Boundless for other reasons.
Edit
As others have pointed out above, it would also be open to massive abuse by griefers and greedy people.
Nothing needs changing.
3 Likes
It seems a lot of people disagree with my “ability to request ownership” suggestion, which is fine. Given this, I offer an alternative suggestion that would at least partially solve the issue.
Allow players have the ability to pm beacon owners by interacting with their beacons (similarly to interacting with mailboxes)
I have a feeling that many people could come to a friendly agreement if they were simply aware that someone else was interested in their plots.
Now this obviously doesn’t solve the issue of players taking extended breaks, but i can’t think of a practical solution to that other than what I’ve previously suggested.
I havent caught up on all the discussion here so not sure if someone suggested this or not. What if a system was implemented where after say 3 months, if a user hasnt logged in their plots can be flagged as inactive by other players. This would only apply to beacons that do not meet the 10,000 prestige threshold. If you have 10,000+ prestige your items should be safe for as long as you have gleam club.
After that 3 month period they have 1 month to either log in or respond to the email saying yes I still want these plots or no unplot them for me. No response would mean unplot after 1 month.
This would apply to anyone, even gleam club members. This is mainly to combat the people who have paid for years of gleam club and quit the game or forgot about plots they’ve reserved in a now developed area.
I feel like leaving cases like these unchecked (where a plot with little to no prestige just sits in an area where people are building) hurts the active playerbase more than one person plotting an area for the view. Only to come back and that same view no longer be available.
Again, if you have over 10,000 prestige on your build you would be safe for as long as gleam club lasts.
1 Like
I’ve only skimmed the thread. The problem is really narrow so the solution should be highly targeted. All the issues arise from ppl with stacks of gleam club sitting on empty plots and, this second part is key, other ppl wanting that land. Without all those conditions the game and rules work just fine.
On the one hand we have a player whose build intent is unknown and who has paid the developer for extra privileges. On the other we have a player who wants something they can’t have. The resolution is simple. If you want someone else’s land, talk to them. If they don’t want to talk to you or aren’t around, you can’t have the land. Work around it.
There’s no way to “judge” an absent person’s use of land and there will never be a fair way to do it. Plotting empty land to sell it or to preserve it are two examples of legitimate land use which don’t touch the prestige system.
If you want to change something, the only thing to change is gleam club. You can spend real world money for privilege in Boundless and that privilege is (basically) forever owning land. For less than the cost of a console game you can own thirty acres outside Ultima for over a year. Your problems are with gleam club.
5 Likes
I do not agree.
So if I have GC and don’t have 10k prestige, I don’t have a right to keep my plots?
Then the terms of Gleam Club would have to change and there would be no point in purchasing it. 16 week beacon fuel would be the only thing worth using.
Some people beacon areas for future builds, for farms, for the view, a resource, quick portal access, etc. They won’t get 10k prestige. Not everyone is interested in becoming a settlement/city/etc. If you have to have 10k prestige and risk losing your plots because someone thinks you build too slow or doesn’t like what/why you plotted…that’s not very Boundless IMO. (aside from obvious greifing)
Regardless of Gleam Club…I don’t think players should have any input regarding someone else’s beacon/plots/builds, unless they are directly griefed. Then the devs can look into it and take action if it breaks ToS/CoC.
There are 48 planets and over 16 million plots.
8 Likes
I wasn’t thrilled with gleam club and agreed it would lead to huge amounts of stagnation but we had the problem in EA as well. There were many plots that were locked and people would come refuel the beacons because they hoped to play again one day while they waited for new content or something else… So without EA we might lose some old plots but they will still exist.
Really it comes down to people that are wanting this plot removal just don’t understand the core problem and other components of the game like footfall that created the issue of people wanting to hold plots.
1 Like
It seems you missed my later response:
I think it would be fine if they added this feature, but some ppl purposely hide/bury their beacons. I was greifed by a person that did just this. With help from friends we eventually located the beacon, which was buried down in a mountain, and were able to report it.
1 Like
If you havent logged in or responded to an email in 4 months chances are you’ve quit the game anyway. Logging in would reset the 3 month timer.