Beacon Persistence (redux)


#63

Yes I agree with Annie on this, maybe even too long.


#64

I’m sure this is just a point that you missed while answering all those other ones, but I’d still like to know if there has been any thoughts/plans (which obviously aren’t important ‘right now’, because it’s not something that matters till after launch) as to how/if you’ll handle long-term, intentional absences. For example:

I can imagine playing for a 1 year+ and maybe the content begins to feel a little stale because I’ve overplayed it. I also know through the forum/news that there’ll be a big update in the following year. I decide that I want to take a break until that update hits. I don’t really care about keeping my beacons where they are because a year is a long time and people move… and things change etc. My current options are:

  • Lose everything - Start from scratch
  • Carry on logging in to ensure I fuel things even my beacons even though I don’t really care about them, just to keep my stuff, taking up space as essentially abandoned plots.
  • I am REQUIRED to get someone else to fuel my beacon for me, even though I can no more guarantee that they’ll want to carry on playing for the duration than I will, and still taking up space as essentially abandoned plots.
  • (actually, I thought of this afterwards) I could make an army of alts characters to hold all of my stuff… but this seems like it would take up more resources than simply having a single, long-term item drop.

Obviously, I don’t want to start from scratch. At the same time, I don’t agree with any system that takes somebody who knows they are going to take a break (and is actively willing to do something at the time to secure their belongings), and still requires them to put further input into the game or rely on the good will of others, JUST to keep their possessions. I also don’t really agree with a system that forces you to hold onto plots you don’t care about, especially when other people might want them.

At this point, so far from it being an issue that needs dealing with, I just like to know if it’s something that you’re intending to handle, or whether the answer is a flat out - ‘No, we don’t see that a valid use-case’. Both are totally sensible answers, and I just think that knowing the rough intent of future decisions is as important in informing my opinions of the game as is knowing the decisions being made right now.


#65

One thought only:

Its important that strangers are able to preserve existing build they like if an option is represented, so if someone makes an epic temple, and people like it they can keep it fueled long after the original creator is gone.


#66

I make it short to not lengthen all those discussions into a mile’s length … Yeah, I Iove the fuel system. Easy to use, enough time to refill, no super rare mats needed so not annoying. … And No, no voting should ever be introduced to any beacon issues except for titling existing beacons (like giving the price for the coolest building on the planet)

Finito


#67

There are multiple reasons to visit your Beacon.

  • Refuel it
  • Collect coins from it (based on beacon activity)

When you are visiting your beacon you might also want to:

  • Restock your selling plinths
  • Collect items from your buying plinths

#69

Ouh, that’s awful… This prestige voting and paying system should never see the light of the world but killed as long it is only a thought. … This is a ingame version of Mobbing and reduces freedom instead of supporting it.

(this post was the answer to a removed post)


#71

That might work, assuming that all your beacons are used for trading.
In games like this I tend to have dozens of small outposts in the middle of nowhere that won’t need any resupplying/collecting.


Guess I’ll just wait 'till it’s implemented with some finalized fuel-timers to see how bad it is.


#72

Prestige could be a nice factor for listings but please don’t put it in measurement for deciding if and how long a beacon is allowed to exist. … And player deaths can be wanted if it is an arena :wink:


#73

If you have to much little outposts and you don’t use them for trading, why keeping them up if you don’t need them anymore (if you need them you would travel there once in several months)?


#74

If even the basic fuel is able to preserve a beacon for months then there really is no issue.
But then again, if even the basic fuel is able to preserve a beacon for months then this is an issue on itself imo.


#75

My opinion on the matter is that there should be absolutely no player-to-player influence on beacons that can occur unless there is a prior relationship established. Examples of prior relationships would be shared beacon control, guild relations, and being on friend’s lists. I am not saying that these three relationships should automatically grant influence/control over one another’s beacons! They are just examples of the only acceptable relations if there were to be any voting system established. Personally, I think any voting system is a terrible idea because there’s too many chances for groups of people to influence the people that want to be alone. Guilds and such will already have inherent benefits, they don’t need another power to exert on noobs.

In addition to the previous thought, I’m surprised that people are even considering the beacon system as a means of controlling griefers. People who are honestly griefing, just like in any other successful MMO, should simply be able to be reported and dealt with immediately. Trying to make a system where all of the rules are known and must be followed by everybody the same gives the developers an impossible task of thinking and anticipating EVERY way that one may grief other players. The status quo is what it is for MMOs because of this exact point. People are creative, and they’ll find ways to mess with the system no matter what. We just have to count on good communities and a simple system of reports. If anything, I guess this is a type of “vote”. When one player is caught griefing and gets reported for the same thing enough times, they’re punished.

Why the last system? Because of my current situation. I don’t have time to get on and play like I want to right now. But, I know that in about 5 weeks I’ll be able to play a lot. I can get on and find some fuel to keep my creations active, but I couldn’t get on and create social ties that would ensure the people around me didn’t vote my beacons away. It’s just not fair to the people who are in these situations if their beacons can be influenced in any way by others.

Another example that serves the same point is that I have found areas that I want to build specific builds on. I want those builds made out of specific materials, and it takes time to gather those materials. Sometimes, I want to claim an area for the sake of claiming it until I can find the right mats. If others were able to vote away my beacon because I didn’t have anything there for a time, then what’s the point of having beacons to claim land in the first place?

I’ll just restate my main point here for the devs: PLEASE do not give players any control over other player’s beacons. I honestly think that any control, or “votes”, you give to others will cause more problems than it fixes.

If people didn’t like a player’s beacon, then let them send a message (in limited quantities) asking them to move it. But don’t institute a system in which the player who owns the beacon can lose his beacon or stuff without his lack of attention.


#76

Yeah, great post Celt - many of the alternatives proposed to farming leaves/wood for beacon fuel just change it to farming other mats, farming prestige, farming visitors, or farming “friends”.

I am so against player voting - if I have to go round sucking up and paying tribute to everyone I meet just in case they decide as a group to “bully” vote my beacon out while I am on a break - it doesn’t make for a very pleasant game atmosphere living with that kind of fear.


#77

yeah, the really big thing that the voting system would create is power. we (I) dont want that, because everyone alwayas will abuse it at some point


#78

i’ve been thinking the same way


#79

What bugs me with this system is that someone will make awesome builds and decide not to play anymore. Losing any nice builds would harm the game which is player-generated-content based. Imagine someone put hours and hours into resource gathering, building and tweaking a few builds. They look awesome. For whatever reason that person does not fuel those builds. They disappear. I don’t get the point of that?

I think maybe asking players to fuel builds only if they were flagged for removal. They would need to be flagged by more than one user. Also users that can flag build must be neighbors. So no one can over vote anyone, but can require active participation. That sounds kinda balanced to me. For bigger builds I’d require moderator action to actually remove it even if it was flagged, and even if user didn’t fuel it. For those cases mods could flag builds as permanent or something. Maybe owner could also ask mod to flag as permanent if he/she considers the build too pretty to be flagged for removal or if he plans absence or complete drop of the game :smiley:

For empty builds (ones that do not contain any significant build - determined from the diff with naturally generated state) it is enough for one player to flag them, owner is informed by email, has 24h to fuel it. Also empty builds should be actively flagged by system for removal after like two weeks of inactivity.

For actual griefing just report to moderator.

All together with all the complexities and server load I guess adding this kind of active system as proposed it absolute overkill, for both servers and players. Why track everything and anything if you could only track per flagging?


#80

I am seeing an Oort Historical Society: a guild who’s purpose is the preservation of beautiful, but abandoned, builds. When a building hasn’t been fueled in the proper time frame, members of the guild come along to take the land with guild plots.


#81

@jasoncfinley I actually see a good idea forming here. It relates to jason’s and @Spoygg’s thoughts. What if the system works as proposed by @olliepurkiss with one added feature: When a player’s build runs out of fuel the area puts out some kind of aura/area message (once per hour or the like) and during that time players can go to the build and claim it with their plots? It let’s cool builds be salvaged, and even crappy builds get used for materials, etc. This is a system that involves players, but doesn’t give them direct power over another person’s plots.

I could even see it working if the timing was modified for this type of event. E.g., when a player voluntarily removes their beacon, it’s the same regen as normal. But when a player’s beacon times out the former plots get a visible aura and/or sends out a message to the local region (like the current 50 named regions per planet) that there is some stuff for grabs. And this area would stay like this for, say, a week [or enter other preferable time here].

For maintaining the RPG feel I think auras would be cooler. Imagine going exploring to see a nice building sparkling with gold and the excitement you’d feel about possibly having found a trove of materials or a pre-made structure in a nice area!

With the e-mail notifications being sent to players and a timescale being given to them as to how long they have before this stuff happens, it’d be a fair system with possible rewards for others from those who stop.


#82

i like the idea. my portal on berlyn is in the middle of a ghost town i believe. it will be sad to see all the little things around there vanish but at the same time i think that the lack of development of certain of those builds may be a deterrent for players looking to build by other great looking creations.

meaning, the half built homes that never change are like slums and condemned houses. no one wants to live by that.

while they make the area easier to spot i dont mind my portal being a secret find in the middle of the wilderness. There are some nice things pretty close to my portal, a lake house or two that look pretty nice. A nice homestead with a pretty fabulous windmill. etc.

I am for the proposed system.

Id just like to note, i hope we dont get too far into the habit of having to fuel everything. And if we do, as long as the costs arent to stress inducing then yeah lets do it.


#83

i like the shared beacon fuel idea.

to counter the possibility of players making a ton of annoying pointless beacons and making them permanent fixtures, just up the cost of fuel depending on how many beacons you have out since it would be shared. I also like this idea since traveling between worlds can get quite expensive if you dont have portals / access to portals considering you need freaking gigantic warps and coin supply to travel regularly between distant planets, a feature i think still needs major balancing.

shared fuel among beacons +1


#84

If you would like, I could connect your elopor temple build to the berlyn township. At the moment, the township’s elopor portal is connected to @Nyuudles’ grotto build, but since nobody was using it I shut it down to reduce fuel costs.