Beacon Persistence

[TheWickedCreator]

The toll part is under the economy tab/button on the front page.

Nope. they cant. resources doesnt respawn in beacons

Yep. But the resources that are present already stay.

Beacons are limited to X Y Z size, so effectively they would need to do the entire mountain

Devs have mentioned possibly reworking the size of beacons and number of plots (sorry can't remember which dev log it was in) and yeah I was talking about some passage through a mountain, lord of the rings mines of moria style.

[ChickenBranches]

Nope. they cant. resources doesnt respawn in beacons. and even resources of rarer qualities spawns randomly outside of beacons.

My main question about resource regeneration isn't about what is in the beacons but how beacons being in an area modify what/where resources can spawn. For example, if there are a bunch of abandoned beacons near a guilds main base area, they could cause that guild to have to travel further to mine. I only mention this because it could be an argument for beacon/fuel system. If resources can spawn anywhere outside of the actual beacon then its not really an issue. but if a beacon restricts it within like a 100x100 area or w/e, then it would be bad.

[Zouls]

Ah apologies, then it was the secondary case. But again while you could lock down materials for the duration they are there would most likely mean you would lose SOMETHING for removing the beacon i would assume.

Devs have mentioned possibly reworking the size of beacons and number of plots (sorry can't remember which dev log it was in) and yeah I was talking about some passage through a mountain, lord of the rings mines of moria style.

The thing which i read it as (and i might be wrong) was like a sort of "people could just beacon the only tunnel" where i would assume that whoever made the tunnel and are the ones who would put a beacon down first. And no matter the size i think it would still take a decent amount of beacons. Like if they beacon a mountain make an undersground tunnel and they are screwed XD

Its just that no matter the case it would be the same whether or not people beaconed and area with a mountain so people cant pass or if they beacon and area and build a wall.

I think that a lockdown of an area if people had enough resources would be fairly interesting. But i can definitely see it being a problem if the resources they need to block an area is minimal (thinking back on a problem in ARK where on a PVE server people just build a small wall infront of the cave entrances so they could block off the entire caves.

So its definitely something that need to be thought of in terms of like. Temples forexamples. would temples have only one way in and could people stop that? but that would be an issue either way.

[Zouls]

ah this was an answer to another guy. But that is certainly an interesting question that i havent thought of. as far as i understood they just spawn randomly (which i guess means they switch places with other blocks? dunno) I think the system was a sense of "you cant just mark a small area in a cave and get constant gems from it" but rather "everytime you get gems in a cave the mats will spawn somewhere else either in the cave around it. Would love to hear from @ben @olliepurkiss if building a beacon somehow changes the resource spawns AROUND the area.

[ChickenBranches]

It's funny, I was thinking of ARK as well when writing my post. People placing foundations all over a mountain, therefore blocking the metal spawns sure was annoying.

[Zouls]

Yeah that is the difference it depends on how hard it actually is to get something. Like foundations in ark arent too hard to get if i remember correctly. But beacons in Boundless when it seems like they only want people to have a few beacons and taking in to account the scale difference and how many resources there are other places i wouldnt assume its a problem.

[Thorbjorn42gbf]

I was discussing something like this previously in the discussion and the main problem wasn't that it was a free chest but that it allowed you to move large amounts of resources from your outpost to in this example, the capital

I don't think this would be a problem if you went away from the fuel idea as that would mean people would need to log out and wait several months for their beacon to despawn before being able to play again.

I guess I could spend all Saturday going over nitpicky details and talking about why my opinions don't matter because you don't like them, but I guess I'll just let the numbers do the talking.

Well these numbers where taken before @Zouls pointed out some new stuff. Meaning that hey could as well change now

[ChickenBranches]

I don't think this would be a problem if you went away from the fuel idea as that would mean people would need to log out and wait several months for their beacon to despawn before being able to play again.

yea I kinda like the charge system mentioned earlier. As you play, you passively regenerate the charge on all of your beacons.

But beacons in Boundless when it seems like they only want people to have a few beacons and taking in to account the scale difference and how many resources there are other places i wouldnt assume its a problem.

yea you are probably right. I guess it depends on how long the game lives on. If beacons never went away, eventually it could get to the same level as foundation spamming in ark. Probably not though i guess with private worlds and how large the worlds are but hard to tell. Also depends on how big and how many beacons they allow when 1.0 comes out. Ark added the decay system where you could go up and demolish someone else's structure if they haven't been online for x period of time based on y material used to make the structure. The problem with that system is that I personally experienced an issue where i was being griefed but I couldn't demolish his structures because he would log in once every two weeks for just a few seconds.

[Combatman12]

What I would need out of this system, worst case scenario:
6 month maximum beacon duration
2 hours of effort (during the whole of the 6 months) to refuel the beacon (for 1 extra month)

A feature that would probably remove some downsides to these features would be that beacons go through an extra phase on expiring, before entering any degeneration phase, the beacon area goes on sale. It first goes on sale to people within their friend group, then to faction members, then to guild members and then to everyone before degenerating etc. The price of the area is based on its contents and then could be a auction in each section. The money goes to the owner for when they come back, helping them repurchase any expensive items they lost, and if they had a good looking build, it might help them to make amends. It's not a win-win scenario, but more of a lose less scenario.

[Havok40k]

Ah not this again. I'm not deleting anything short of outright flame wars anymore. I'm not the forum police and I never wanted to be, but if I have to put you both in time-out I swear to all that is unholy I will figure out a way.
@zouls, leave the attitude behind when you post, even if you preamble with a disclaimer. If somebody disagrees, then ignore them if you aren't going to bother with a civil counter arguement. Play nice, agree to disagree. Not every oppinions needs to boil down to an all out war.
PSA TO ANYONE READING THIS: NIT-PICKING IS UNPRODUCTIVE AND ANNOYING. DON'T FIGHT OVER TINY DETAILS. SHARE YOUR OPPINIONS, BUT DON'T EXPECT OTHERS TO AGREE 100% WITH THEM.

I'm at work, people. I work 56 hours a week. I have a limited amount of time to post every day. I don't want to waste my time making posts like these.

[Saint-X]

Beacons will allow us to shape the world. Beacons should ENCOURAGE people to shape the world. I would love. absolutely love to walk around in boundless and see a bridge between two mountains. i would love to walk around and see someone having carved a nice tunnel through as a way to minimize the amount of time required to travel from places. I would love to walk around in a cave and find a small statue with the inscription "May luck be with you traveller". All of those things are POSSIBLE by allowing people to change the worlds that we live in. People can decide to make a path which will help EVERYBODY. people can make a bridge that will help EVERYBODY. people could make hidden monuments that would be a "wow" moment for everybody. If it only cost a beacon. A one time investment. A constant reminder for what was done. A year after a person stopped playing a new player might stumble unto that bridge and thank the person creating it for saving him time and reducing his risk. If you have a forced constant upkeep then those things would eventually run out.

yes i love to explore and find hidden monument. And i like real this "wow" moments if i found a nice structure, its a good ground to explore the world. a bridge from 1 side to other side from a mountain often make it much easier to travel.

2) "Then people could get the spots other claimed that they dont use anymore" This. Is peculiar to me and makes very little sense. Again im not a builder. But how uptight do you have to be to play in a universe with a many different worlds and ATLEAST a few billion square meters of land, and then just go "I have all of this to build on. but i want THAT particular 30x30x30 spot or my build wont be good". There isn't much to say about it because it makes no sense to me honestly.

i dont know in which topic it was posted but known worlds size are 4k, 8k, 10k and maybe more. and i think it will give more as 2-3 worlds.
world ground size: 4k x 4k => 16mio => 100%
beacon from any player 100x100 => 1k => 0,006%
that is nothing. and on 16 mio blocks it give more as 2-3 good place to build
and now i know anyone will say if he set a beacon in a town and never build on this spot a other player can use this space better, maybe yes, but go it is like in the real life, if you buyed a place to build its you for ever.

Okay so the whole "beacon is part of progression" is really the biggest problem i have with all of it. From what I SEE from the game is effectively that people start from nothing and then slowly build up houses, machines etc etc. Upon dying you would love stuff meaning that you would most likely have it stashed in your house. So in your house are all of your excess crafting materials, maybe you have extra gear, maybe you have machinery. the only thing that is NOT in your house is your skills, currently equipped gear and items and you gold/gems. This is where the biggest problem is for me. Losing your house is not just a matter of "oh i lost something that looked nice" but rather "I lost about 75% of my progression" which would be REALLY FREAKING DISCOURAGING to those who MIGHT want to get back into the game. Can you imagine it? Those who stopped playing and wants to play again. And they log in and they lost that much? Can you imagine in any MMORPG where they would get away with making it so when people came back after a few months it just said "Due to being gone for too long we have decided to wipe everything in your bank and everything in your backpack. Welcome Back!"

A normal player will save all rare blocks in his chest because if he die he want lose all rare blocks and he build al crafting machines an all worbench in his house. And that other player cant destroy his home he setup a beacon on this spot. Now he had no time to play for maybe 3-4 month, after this time he think i had a great idea how i can expand my house and come back to the game. i started the game and see all is lost my complete house.
my response would be, beautiful was the idea, I deinstall it and play something else.

And here a question too this situation. If a player had a cheast in a beacon, and the beacon get lost because the time is over. what happen with the chest ?`all lost or ?

Let's say there's a town with 25 people such that it's arranged like this:

A B C D E
F G H I J
K L M N O
P Q R S T
U V W X Y

Now let's say player G has left the game and has no intention of rejoining but player H has a really good friend Z who wants to join this town. But the town belongs to a guild called "The 25" or something and they won't let player Z join. Now if G's beacon were to deteriorate in their absence, Z could join. Yes this is a weak example. Yes this doesn't apply to everyone. But it is a valid example and thus can be used to fuel that argument.

i think, bad luck for the player z, in the real life you can destroy a house only because you will build on the spot.

[Rolco]

Personally I would rather this game reward the active player who can, or decides to be playing regularly, first.

With a fair and decent system in place to allow ample time for those who can no longer, or that don't want to invest time, second.

Then an option for the greater community to upkeep, reward off of, or perma save those works, third.

[Combatman12]

That would work for me, but not entirely. I would have to play in sort of 3 month fanboy bursts. Then take 6-12 month breaks at longest. As long as I didn't lose any machines etc that are hard/expensive to get I wouldn't mind.

[Havok40k]

I would have to play in sort of 3 month fanboy bursts. Then take 6-12 month breaks at longest.

I'm skeptical of these numbers.

[KuroKuma]

I'm not, I've totally done that with Minecraft (multiple times in fact^^)

[Havok40k]

Would that be due to playing other games in that time period?

[KuroKuma]

No that would be due to loosing interest for some time (some months most of the time)

[Havok40k]

Right, so you lose interest in all gaming for months at a time?

[Thorbjorn42gbf]

I can say I do, I kinda jump between intensive reading and intensive gaming. And then months where I am social and stuff.

[KuroKuma]

If you mean if I don't play games for those months at all, no I play other games.
If you mean if that's what happens with all games I play, that I lose interest for months. Yes, but that's the best case scenario.