Con:
Would again end up in a whole “Prepare for when you plan to stop playing” scenario. Which seems kinda contrary to the suggested point of the system (to have measures for those who left without preparing for it)
Con:
How would it scale? if not every item could be saved would it then allow you to save a percentage of items? would it be possible to cheat the system by filling up your entire space with dirt blocks?
Pro:
Would make sure that atleast SOMETHING stays for looters if such a system were to be implemented.
Try keeping to pros, cons and solution for the main problems and then later expand from there. This way we get a broader picture of possibilities. Before getting into detail and such.
Would be a discussion to argue if its good or bad. Right now we are just making a list. It is a con that a system relies on a percentage due to how that could be abused and a PRO that it always adds some consequence to leaving the beacon for too long and will always make sure SOMETHING stays for the looters. shrug
If fuel requirement is not met - beacon will remain semi active until either removed by owner or other player.
Pro:
After a break with no fuel upkeep, chances are high your valuable work will stay in tact.
Gives eye sores a chance to be removed by the community
Allows for land take over in desired locations.
Adventurous players may possibly be able to loot build materials.
Eliminates ghost towns.
No natural regen without player interaction.
Encourages active play with fuel upkeep.
Cons:
No natural regen without player interaction.
Requires upkeep with fuel system for perma builds.
I’m struggling here, please help???
Additional Cons - Credit @Zouls
-Would in most cases be most beneficial to remove it considering there is zero downside to it
-Even if 100 people wants a monument to stay all it would take is one guy to remove the beacon and steal all the stuff (unless someone else takes the beacon first)
Personal note:
Considering my current play trends this ticks so many boxes for me personally.
I tend to get excited about a build, protect it, build it, admire it. After the buzz wears off. I move on to a new project. My old build stays protected for some time while relevant and fresh in my mind.
To which I can choose - up keep and protect for 3 months. Or, leave it be. Then it’s up to the community to enjoy it, remove it, or even add to it.
Boy I’d love to hear people’s thoughts on this!
The more I think about your idea the more I like it.
Credit: @Thorbjorn42gbf
Cons:
-Would in most cases be most beneficial to remove it considering there is zero downside to it
-Even if 100 people wants a monument to stay all it would take is one guy to remove the beacon and steal all the stuff (unless someone else takes the beacon first)
Potential system. If beacons WERE To disappear and things WERE to stay inside (which i still hope isnt the case). Leave the beacon expired with several options. as long as the beacon stays natural regen will leave it alone and people cant loot it. Let people interact with several options
A) Remove beacon and destroy everything inside the beacon for X price (you just want the spot)
B) Remove the beacon and instantly get everything inside of the area for 2X price (you just want the items)
C) Obtain the beacon and let everything stay inside of it for 3X price (so if you fall upon a sweet house you can just buy the house as it stands.)
Pro:
-Will allow for looting but it isnt just a free loot but rather a choice you have to make if it is worth it
-Will allow for those who wants the spots to get them even though they have to pay a bit more
-Discourages people from taking beacons just for the sake of taking them
-Allows for things such as monuments atleast until someone destroys it or refreshes it
-Would allow for people/clans/guilds to find an abandoned city and claim it for themself for a price (money to make up for convenience)
-Multiple steps with various prices allows for more people to use it for the thing they want to use it for (so they dont have to loot everything by hand or if they just want the area they dont need to tear down everything by hand)
Con:
-Setting a price on removing beacons might reduce the amount of people who are willing to pay for making the game more natural again
-Could quickly become a fairly expensive procedure to clear off larger areas.
So ignoring the fact that I have no ideas about if this would work:
Continuing the work on the ender chest idea, what if instead of all items being removed from the beacon and transported to a chest, and the other idea with dropping your items in a special chest every time you log out.
You in your beacon ui could designate and amount of items/blocks/props as important, all items have a set value and only up to a certain value can be protected but that threshold grows as the player progresses, (this could probably be based on the total value of stuff inside the beacon) and when the beacon dies all these items is then trasported to the before mentioned chest, if some of the items is not in the beacon or some points are not spent the game will automatically remove stuff of the highest possible value until the full point vlaue is reached.
Pros:
-would make it alot harder to boost it just by dirt
-would allow people for some options to what they desire to keep.
Con:
-In a player run economy this would set a very clear and very defined prize of every items (not good)
-The devs would have to mark every single item with a certain worth. Which is fundamentally subjective (cloth might be worth alot to a tailor but not to a weaponsmith) and doenst take in
-The max value could be artificially increased by those who can afford it while punishing those who cant afford it. (making the richer, richer and the poor, poorer)
I think a way to scale it is what Vastar mentioned above:
It doesn’t necessarily have to be cash shop. Just give players a limited “budget” (# of blocks, or some other value) of items that they can retrieve from an expired beacon
If that idea is followed probably let some of that coin go the owner so they have a stronger economy when they get in again if they still feel like establishing a new base.
A variation to the idea would be to set it to an item amount and jsut let the game judge what is high value if there is space left.
Rather than using intrinsic values of items (e.g. dev-assigned), go with something that is defined by the player who owns the beacon. E.g. just give them a # of items to pick; let the player determine their relative (and subjective) worth.
I think that avoids all three of those cons?
We already make this sort of trade off when juggling a full inventory; it seems like a pretty natural decision process for the player
I really like this idea. I’m fine with paying a fee to be able to loot/get rid of a ghost town. It’s like a mystery auction. As you’ve already mentioned, the issue falls in pricing different beacons and whatnot. I do think the Coins paid for your three options should all go to the Player who previously owned the beacon. Helps them recover from a loss when coming back to the game.
What if I’ve decided my items are priceless?
Yep. Hard to discuss this though without knowing more.
Yellow, orange, red, dark green → Completely lootable
Bright green, blue, pink → Teleports into your “void vault”
And if you decide to pick B< up again after a year of abstinence and want an easy start into the game you have the option to pay x bucks to retrieve all items from the “bright green, blue & pink” category.
Simple and easy.
Personally I think that you should loose all placed stuff like crafting stations.etc.
B< won´t be a super hardcore & punishing game, but neither should it sugarcoat every aspect of the game.
Some are worth more than others to you; it’s ok to have players make concessions.
Take WoW’s banks as an example. There’s a limited # of item slots available; people who have been playing a while do eventually hit that cap and are forced to choose which items they would prefer to preserve. This seems like the same sort of approach, to me.
@Heurazio’s rules are somewhat problematic in that regard. He gives people permission to respond to each other in rule 3 but says no discussions in rule 2. That means the original poster of an idea can’t respond to the person disagreeing with them or else a discussion is made. I think “discussion” is fine. I think “arguments” aren’t. We should be able to discuss and elaborate on our ideas, such as @Zouls idea of paying to acquire a beacon. We should not argue for our own ideas or tell others why their ideas are wrong. Generating as many ideas as possible and fleshing those out seems to be the goal here, and I think some amount of discussion is necessary.
Oh, I thought for some reason that we were talking about the value of the items. But in this post you’re basically just agreeing with this?
Disclaimer: That is my interpretation. I may not have enough context as I’m at work right now and haven’t read in-depth all of the posts. Please feel free to correct me or make any caveats or addendums that you (nevir) may feel are necessary. Thank you.
If decisions are made by the returning player upon their return to the game, are we duplicating the items they’ve chosen to restore? Giving them to both scavengers and the returning player?
