I am in disagreement with your assesment you are not taking into account that the amount of beacons is limited and therefore giant builds would either be in use or be owned by a guild, single players would hardly have the beacon amount to make a huge build and then wander of to do something else.
Unless they’re backers.
1 Like
Well even then they will maybe have enough to leave a single dead build, and that after having played for a considarate amount of time.
Either way worlds overbuild with buildings are problably only going to happen in the very old worlds and those will probably not spawn the new player ^.^
1 Like
Its a question of worlds to i think. If all are on a few small worlds, it got to be problems. But i hope it will be lots of big worlds to everyone to find a spot, and if worlds get to crowded, open new ones and ppl will move there, and if you ask nicely they maybe remove old beacons for you.
But no, it doesn’t solve problem with non-player beacons, unless old worlds been abandoned.
1 Like
Last I heard I think they are launching with 50 worlds? I can’t find a source (due to work constraints, not because I actually looked) and I’m 100% positive that number has probably changed because I think I heard it WAY early on in development.
1 Like
Random numbers incoming
Last thing I could find about size of the worlds.
an 8 km world would be 1000 beacons across. (Assuming 8x8x8 beacons)
If they just launch with 10 of these we are going to have 10.000.000 beacons of space not counting up and down, asumming that only 1% of this is used we will have 100.000 beacons of space not counting up and down (And any larger builds will probably use at least double layer beacons. assuming the player can get 100 beacons within short time (Which they won’t) people will have roughly a 128x128x24 area which is pretty large and it will take 3000 players using up this 1% of space if they build 3 high that is. I would say there is space for aproximately 1500 players if they all get 100 beacons quickly and use around 1% of the space in the game.
If the game is filled up quickly though the devs have reasonable time to add new spawn worlds and expand the universe with more small worlds which will use the space more effeciently and more large worlds that will provide exploration area.
But again people will probably not gain 100 beacon each during the first week. So we could probably have double that space, or maybe even more. And remember that people will by the mechanincs be incouraged to lump together, in guilds.
5 Likes
I think it would be neat to have the builds inside the Beacon deteriorate over time like ruins, it’d be cool to find and then another player could rejuvenate the build.
I also like the idea of beacon owners being able to log on to make sure their land/items are safe. Sometimes people don’t have the time to play if something comes up so they might loose all their hard work if they have to play to keep their beacon. Visiting/opening the game still shows the person is interested in the game and it encourages people to come back if they have something to come back to.
2 Likes
Last I heard though, was that beacons would have a “no beacon” area around them, so that there wouldn’t be beacons put right up against others without permission.
3 Likes
Hi everybody. I want to give an Idea.
I am desagree with the idea of destroying beacons… But I really understand that many others don’t. Personally I play in calm, I don’t want to be the best, I just want to create my house, and have good friends. but without having to worry about my house could be destroyed if i quit for a while…
So here is my idea: Why we have to choose for yes or no?, lets add some worlds where this rule doesn’t apply.
When you are in the list of worlds to teleport in, add a group of worlds where Beacons never dies. so people who like to play chill and relax like me won’t be worry about it. and others who dislike the idea can play in normal worlds.
What do you think?
8 Likes
Nice 50 worlds Then i have the coming 10 years to explore them…
1 Like
Wouldn’t really do anything about the theoretical 1% mark I just made up though the people living close would probably do that within the same guild or up against beacons allowing them to build close by.
This list will not exist though, traveling is going to be about knowing the location of portals and where they lead.
Having worlds where beacons never die would create the exact minecraft problem the beacon decay is working against though dead unfinished builds.
These worlds would relatively quickly turn into tomb worlds filled with dead and abandoned builds and would at some point get so beaconed that people would start leaving them to search out a new one. If you do not want to fear for your house dying joining a guild seems to be the ideal idea though as they will help maintain your home beacon.
3 Likes
I would not want a building protected by a beacon to decay. If the beacon is gone, understandable. Athough I like the image of ruins overgrown by plants or the jungle or sand dunes.
I’m not a big fan of the fuel the beacon idea, but it seems to be very practicable. Maybe a beacon can be maintained by activating it before it runs out and an active log in time of one or two hours.
A guild could set up permanent beacons. Depending on age of the guild, an average playtime and the sum of guild members, a permanent shield could be built.
Or a request to the developers for a permanent beacon on an already built site if it is big enough and doesn’t happen too often.
2 Likes
Where are you getting this from? I don’t even think it have been brought up?
Misread it, sorry. Read too fast.
Edit - it was the ‘flagged beacon’ - if it is flagged and not upkept, the interior regenerates until its gone back to its former state and finally the beacon disappears also. If i understand it right.
2 Likes
Yeah basically, it is supposed to give the owner some time to react to his beacons decay without loosing it instantly
1 Like
I need to elaborate I guess. The chest and its materials would only be saved if certain conditions are met. It would only apply to chest inside of beacons when they are destroyed because of no fuel or however many months it takes for them to go away depending on how the devs choose to control that. This would get rid of both your concerns and clexarews concerns i believe. You would still need to place it in a beacon to protect it and u can’t just let regen get rid of it and then respawn it cause it would take a long time for it to come into effect.
1 Like
Place chest inside small beacon with little fuel
Keep gathering stuff
Go back put more stuff inside beacon
Go home
Run around prettyfying your house
A few days later you beacon die
Chest despawns
Make the chest respawn
1 Like
Personally I like there being some timer, say 1-2 months where the beacon is saved, and if you log in during that time the timer is reset.
IMO it would be interesting if some sort of petition service could be put in place so that say someone is stopped playing for a min amount of time (say 1 month or so) and another player comes along and wants that area they could just petition for the beacon to be removed, where an automatic email would be sent to the player who controls the beacon asking if they want to give up the beacon, and if there is no response in like 2-4 weeks then the beacon is removed. Obv there is problems with this idea, lots of possibilities for abuse, but if for some reason you can’t play the game for a month or 2 you wont come back to find everything gone because you didn’t have the time to play.
2 Likes
well It was my impression that you were limited on how many beacons you could place in a world and I doubt any beacon will only last a few days. I feel like without fuel it should at least last a few weeks. And if it last that long and limited on beacons, would it really be worth leaving your stuff there…