You get annoyed glares even. Same goes for @Clexarews ^.^
3 Likes
I already have about 50 points (DKP) minus (ah, jokes). I’m just shrugging 'em off left and right so I don’t drown in them.
2 Likes
Is there a way we can vote on some of these permanent areas of the map? Hear me out in this I believe small-medium size built areas should be destroyed or reclaimed back from the generator but huge projects like a giant castle should have some sort of option like maybe a voting poll for the players to decide whether or not it should stay or go. There are some great monuments built by players and it’s sad to see some of those gone only just to be remembered by youtube videos or images on google search. It will be great for players too to be inspired by other people’s creations to see it first hand in person(as the player character). Plus it will be great reference points to use in the game to get to a location just by having those structures stand out in open (the village is near the pac-man eating the glowing orbs not by the ghosts chasing the pac man, got it john?)
Everthing above this line should be added to the Lists.
If you appreciate my work collecting everything please like my two top posts 
I’ve split up a tangible concept #1 for semi-permanent beacons. As far as i understand this conversation correct, this is a concept which the most of us agree (in regards to beacon expiration)
@Clexarews: Yes, my rules #2 and #3 influence each other (That there will be discussions in this regard, I’ve already thought of when creating them). But it was the only possibility which I could think off, that does not harm the conversation (thinking process). As you said correct:
I’m really happy how this topic grows and about the ideas we’ve come up with.
3 Likes
@Heurazio, thank you for showing this initiative. It is logically a very important subject for the community.
I would like to quote the idea from the other topic, because that is what my pros and cons are based on.
Dear Devs, and Boundless Online community,
Perhaps the problem we all face is this: there is a mixture of people using beacons to their advantage. I believe these two people cannot be looking at the beacon for an allround solution. Not the way it functions now. The people using beacons currently consist of two main playergroups (and some minor experimentalists):
1) protecting the structures and buildings, which are necessary for the game to develop.
2) claiming resources which is necessary for the player to develop.
I’d like to rather see these two different aspects get two different types of fuel to upkeep the beacons. Adding different beacon stats and characteristics to suit the needs of the player.
The field-type:
- is cheaper to construct,
- is smaller in size
- can (with proper training) be constructed on multiple locations
- is weaker, so it lasts about a day or two (does not allow fuel-stacking to pay in advance)
- still allows others to take actions inside it, giving them a time-delay that is significant
- is attackable with special siege equipment that allows other players to strip block by block
- it’s fuel is transferable to other players (using currency // blocks).
The barrier-type:
- is relatively expensive to construct, cheaper per block if they are larger
- can be huge relative to the field-type,
- is stronger, so it lasts about a month without fuel (allows fuel stacking to ‘pay in advance’)
- prevents the other player from deconstructing inside it
- is not attackable (unless fuel reaches 0), at fuel 0 it will become attackable with special siege equipment that allows players to strip block by block
- it’s fuel is transferable to other players (using currency // blocks).
I know that what you asked is not another tool to use, but in the end the world is 'possible with white and black, life and death. Creation and Destruction.
Pros for temporary beacons
-
Gives the game a PvP aspect.
Making ‘salvager’ or ‘siege’ a subclass of sorts. So it creates jobs: people will start hunting ‘ghost-beacons’ (from solo players), and/or entire guilds can start sieges to economically drain one another. -
Won’t allow the world to become saturated with beacons.
When beacons decay there will be people dedicated to salvaging preventing the world to become cluttered with land nobody can touch. -
Risk vs. Reward (basic game mechanics) will remain in tact.
If it’s easily done, then there shouldn’t be too much of a reward to doing it. If it’s harder to do, it’ll need to naturally be more rewarding. If it’s ‘easy’ to claim space in a server, and then do nothing with it, then what is the value of the server? And so how much value does the game have for us players in the long run (6 months)? If you catch my drift. -
A natural answer to risk is created
You will see mercenary or defensive guilds emerge, offering services to protect your beacons against threats. A natural way to deal with risk: security and prevention. -
Allows for even more interactions between guilds / players.
Beacons will become a thing you’ll see popping up in chat every other day or so. Be it that they are hunting fuel or are getting sieged. This allows for the neutral ‘newbie’ to become interested in joining efforts.
– EDIT: added these cons below–
Cons for temporary beacons
-
Beacons might become a first and last end-game goal at the same time.
It could on it’s own become the one and only goal people have to play the game. If the beacons aren’t scalable or resize-able and usable after a decent time-frame for new players, they will ‘find it quite dangerous’ to start their dream-build. -
@Stretchious says: “Not all players want PVP all the time.”
I think the essence of beacons in general is: ‘preventing a players actions taken in a specific area’. That has the ring of PvP to it, if you ask me. Or rather, prevention of PvP. Regardless still this can be overcome by stockpiling some fuel for the rest of the months ahead and you’re set to ‘not PvP all the time.’ So this isn’t the con to the concept. The next one however can become a consequence of this fuel-system. -
Fuelhoarding becomes a struggle for casuals
Time spent is important to the player. Together we’re going to go through a couple of balancing periods to make the fuel-system fun, economically stable and worthwhile. Because 1) Finding the right ingredients to make the fuel. 2) Production time, and 3) Remote adjustments or actually walking up to a pedestal to input the ‘gems’ that power the beacons (don’t shoot, it’s just a brainfart example), all of this takes time. This altogether shouldn’t take longer than a percentage of gametime.
Thank you, for reading.
Best regards,
Endymion
I can summarise each of the pros with the same con…
- Not all players want PVP all the time.
6 Likes
so for the whole “Time VS Fuel” thing.
again i am still horribly against losing your items, but as Aristotle said “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” enough ego stroking. the suggestion. (For convenience instead of saying “in case it were to happen” i will just say “it is” though i mean the first)
If we were to have a time system of x amount of time in which you have to log in. lets say 2 months cause its easier to work with those numbers.
(i wont mention a fuel type, i dont care if its gems or whatever. i will just call it X)
everytime you logged in the bar resets. Now there are 2 parts to this system
A) allow people to pay x that will extend the time with 14 days. The time would start by taking the “real” time and would then go to the “extra” time if it were to reach that point. meaning if you pay X but keep logging in every month then you still have those 14 days. So its like an investment.
B) Allow other people to pay 2x to “refresh” the real time back to the 2 months so the person doesnt have to log in. Make a note on the beacon for the owner to read of who refreshed it
Pros:
-You can slowly invest into your beacons so IN CASE IT HAPPENS you have a backup plan
-It is still a choice to make, if you pay x you wont ever get them back.
-If you know you cant make it back in the 2 month period you can ask someone on forums or friends to fill it up for you.
-If there are some great city/Monument the beacon could be kept up forever as long as the rest of the community wants to pay for it
-Fuel would be an EXTRA system. meaning that you wont have to worry it. but its there for those who wants an extra security net to fall back on
Cons:
-Could potentially allow for some sort of “collective griefing” (even if a person arent on he can just get his mates to refresh)
-If there is too small a limit to how far you can extent time it would become a nearly useless
-If too big a limit of time then someone could potentially extent a beacon to stay for extremely long even if the community wants it gone. ("im gonna build an ugly wall and buff it so it lasts a year just to annoy people)
Just to try and think out a mix of the two ideas.
4 Likes
Within the 450 posts monster topic of beacon persistence we have in last 5-8 posts one important clue = con against permanent beacons: the amount of abandoned beacons will increase by time. This is one of the heavy weight arguments in this discussion, because the numbers mentioned are of experience and plausible, appropriate research. The numbers are quite frightening.
Should go into the list and maybe underlined.
1 Like
I know the times you mentioned are placeholders. I just personally think that the combination of log in time and fuel time should not exceed the time that either one of the systems would take by itself and felt it was worth noting this in writing instead of assuming everyone else think it’s implied as well.
Meaning if the devs think 3 months seems good at max for Beacons before you lose them, either because your full fuel ran out or you haven’t logged in, then combining the systems should mean you go 2 months (or whatever) before using your 1 month of fuel (or whatever). Instead of 6 months total (3 for login time, 3 for full fuel).
2 Likes
yes and no but are not allowed to discuss all i can say is that the suggestion was for people who needs it EXTENTED and not as the main part of the system.
2 Likes