That feature is not going to work super great though, it is mostly to figure out in which direction the conversation have been going, if you actually want to get all the important posts, reading is the only options.
2 Likes
Japp, after filling enough pages here to print a new Bible some statements of the devs may help to cool stuff down here 
… I stopped reading after something over 50. I have a life next to the forum, u kno’ ? 
1 Like
I think just because of the sheer size of this post it’s somewhat daunting for players other than those already discussing to contribute. Maybe some of this should be put into a new survey! 
2 Likes
The new thread should help with that ^.^
1 Like
I agree with the comment two above mine that dwarvenname posted. My comment is the 300th reply to this thread, and as a new user it feels like my voice will go unheard, but I am still going to put in my opinion just in case it happens to get read. I apologize if I mention things that others already did: I didn’t read every single comment.
I agree with some of the others about the 6 month mark. I think an email each month is plenty to remind players about the game. But I believe there should be some sort of opt-out option where they can login online (or in the game) and voluntary allow the beacon to disappear and the world to start generating. This will speed up the process for those that know they won’t have enough time to dedicate to the game. Maybe allow another month after the beacon has disappeared to start regeneration just to allow other players to loot the area.
I am not a big fan of the fuel idea because if we are playing the game, I don’t want to have to worry about feeding my beacon just to keep my home. Maybe allow the players to decide which one they want to do: how often they login, or fuel for their beacon. But that might be extra coding. >.>
Personally I believe that it shouldn’t be based solely on how recent their last login though. Players should be rewarded for actually participating in the game. It might be hard to determine who is actually playing and who just logs in, but you could look for long periods of a player being idle, players who just run around for a little bit without interacting with the environment, or other cues. It might be difficult, but I think players will get bored of just logging in to keep their stuff if they’re not actually playing.
I hope I have contributed something useful. I am really enjoying the game so far. For an early release it’s actually quite pretty.
6 Likes
Hey there @Marlaney! Sorry that you feel like your voice will go unheard. Definitely not our intention, some of us just have…opinions ;). The devs do their best to read each post, so yours definitely won’t be lost!
It sounds like some of what you’re thinking has been voiced by others. For a fairly up-to-date list of different ideas and the pros and cons of each, check out this thread! The second post on it contains a poll, so be sure to vote if you haven’t yet!
1 Like
Haha. No worries! Everyone here seems pretty friendly, and there is a great community building even more around this game. Thank you for the links! I will go check those out.
3 Likes
You have some very good points, and I think that setup would work very well.
Only one thing concerns me:
How do you solve the problem of players making a starter house, placing a beacon, and then moving on to make a better house elsewhere, and forgetting about the first beacon? 
In this case fuel may be a better option.
(Have the fuel be stack-able to a point where it could last around 3-6 months)
I think it has been said that players will have a max amount of beacons available to them.
(Please correct me if im wrong)
If this is the case, then a player moving on to a better base will later need to destroy the old beacon, in order to place more.
Oh, I didn’t even think about that! Silly me.
It probably wouldn’t be uncommon for new players to build structures and then venture out in search of more exotic lands.
I totally see how fuel makes the most sense for such circumstances. Good point!
I think you answered your question with your next post already 
Beacons will be a valuable resource for players. I would imagine most people wouldn’t just leave them laying around without them having a purpose. Additionally, the number of beacons you have will be tied to progression, and I don’t think you’ll start out with that many, making them extremely valuable to a player in the early game.
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?)
The problem with that idea really is that it could be abused by large guild to make their builds permant.
We have talked about making a voting system and then alowing the devs to decide on which ones to keep though.
2 Likes
That’s why I suggested allowing players to place a beacon next to an existing one to link them together. If players do have a limited amount (which I heard would be the case) then rhey would be careful about only saving areas that are worth it.
They should, of course, only be allowed to link beacons that are about to expire. There’s no need to link a beacon that is healthy. That’s what the friend tokens are for.
As someone who has high anticipation for the fully released game but who’s interest pre-release has dwindled a bit, I like the idea of permanent beacons. I like knowing that I’ll be able to find some familiarity when I log in even when it’s been a few months since I’ve last decided to check out the progress.
I believe one of Ben’s GUI reveals showed a screen where you can check different points of interest and see their coordinates. With this, it’d be very difficult to not be able to find old beacons.
@Larfleece, make sure to vote on the poll thread (2nd post on that thread) and check up on some of the pros and cons people have given for that idea.
1 Like
I agree it would be abused but wouldn’t the guilds be limited to only one area of the map? May I suggest that if a guild starts building another area it will have a number next to it so the first place they built will be permanent(the beacons have to be connected and not separated but if separated it will only protect the first one but not the second one and after). Also the leader and the other high ranks as well as the lower ranks(adventure) need a certain amount of people to maintain their clan(to make it permanent) so if a guild has 200 people (including the higher ranks) using the beacons, 100 people are needed to be in clan at least at all times so the guilds can’t branch out too much because of the required people needed to stay in the guild. It should scale more depending how many people can join a guild at once.
1 Like
But im not gaming to afterwards have them “left to rot” INEVITABLY. Im gaming to create, to achieve, to grow. Its entirely IMPOSSIBLE to have this positive gaming experience if in the end it is ALWAYS going to rot, one way or another!!
So why still play around with these ideas of rotting, noone likes it, just let them go, im sure the people that are now saying “Yeah id be willed to do that” if youd decide to just keep the things people build while they dont have time to play (for whatever reason it REALLY is none of anyones business!) they would be equally or even more happy with no changes be made to their stuff while they are offline!
1 Like
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):
- protecting the structures and buildings, which are necessary for the game to develop.
- claiming resources which is necessary for the player to develop.
I’d like to rather see these two different players 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.
I’m curious to hear what you people think of this idea.
Regards,
7 Likes