So over the past few weeks I have heard some more drama about settlement annexation and people wanting settlement opt-out. A new one was about someone being surrounded by plots where it didn’t need to happen as well as other plots being put down in between two settlements to block them from merging when they wanted to. People taking over builds (after expiration) but not removing them and using those plots as a way to create annexation and forcing bigger and bigger cities centralized cities where some people don’t want that.
We’ve talked about settlement opt-out and the developers are basically on board. Unfortunately they aren’t taking the time to prioritize the code time to add the feature as requested. I am hoping that a poll might show them how important this is because I know a few people that have left and are close to leaving due to forced settlement annexation or other attempts to create a central planet city.
The feature is simple: Any beacon that is a settlement can select “opt-out” in the options which would make it not be part of the server layer that tries to create larger settlements and creates merges. The default would be to “opt-in” to that server settlement layer. For people that want to connect a few beacons but not be part of that larger settlement they could a guild. All guild aligned/controlled beacons would have the same ability to opt-out based on a guild book option. Basically this gives all people the ability to be part of a larger settlement or opt-out to be part of their own named settlement.
Question: Would you like the ability to opt-out for settlements
The end-goal here is sovereignty and identity. Not only do we want to be a part of the communities we choose to join, but we also wish to exit communities we DON’T wish to join. Prestige doesn’t even need to be a factor here- Communities that wish to cooperate and pool their prestige will continue to do so. But those who wish to stand alone often find that others are borrowing their achievements to prop up their own standing. If I don’t WANT to be a part of a neighboring (or annexing) community, then not only should I be able to separate my beacons title via guild alignment, but I should also be able to choose to not contribute my beacon’s prestige to my neighbor’s prestige. They don’t need to be penalized, but neither should they be rewarded!
Also if you choose to not be a part of the settlement but you are connected to part of that settlement, you cannot CROSS said land you are connected to to continue your settlement…
I can see how this is a viable option for people that aren’t looking at the real problem. The real problem is that a person cannot control who takes over plots that might be connected or how a person might fill in areas. Case in point - I know an area that was not part of a larger settlement. Someone was able to get a beacon in that settlement. They then merged that build with their own build and now that larger area was all of a sudden part of the big city. The people that were part of that original settlement could not back off any more plots because the builds were actually side by side. There was no way to back off without moving.
So going down the path of a solution that expects the person that was annexed to back off is just another way of creating a scenario where the big player can push the smaller player out of the area and off the planet.
The only viable solution is opt-out or opt-in. Opt-in is too hard technically and creates too many complexities compared to opt-out. So that is why opt-out is the answer in this situation.
right so if you want to implement this you have to have a way to protect the other guy since it is not always a one sided thing.
You have a road. I decide to connect to you, BUT opt out of your settlement.
If I decide to build on the other side of your road that I have opted not to join its settlement , I should NOT be able to continue it on as my same settlement… That would be unfair to you as the road owner.
It is the other side of the coin and deserves as much protection as the person wanting to opt out of the settlement.
all land regardless of its use is entitled to the same protections from both types of aggression. Without protections for all parties in all scenarios you will simply create new problems…sort of like playing whack a mole which is what the plot buffers did…fixed some things but created a host of other unforseen negative consequences.
I don’t see reason that one settlement would do unwanted merge with another one to take identity of settlement except if it is about prestige.
So why there couldn’t be potential risk involved when merging is happening that prestige could take instead of increasing decrease. I think it would make players make to know each other better before expanding that is it ok.
If opt in/out would come to game I would like to see one option to make beacon prestige to merged settlement negative.
Is this option to be part of settlement necessary now that game has already two ways to keep identity of settlement. We can already name beacon, set protection and align it to guild. So now there would one more thing way just on controller to keep identity.
I am thinking that this will just increase in entering here and there spam on my screen that I can read much faster from compass than that slowly fading message.
Please explain more how it is “unfair” because the Road Owner decided to enable the option to Opt-Out. This means they are choosing to not join any settlement but their own or the Guild beacon grouping one that exists. So you stay your own settlement. The person that you connected to doesn’t care whether you opt-in or opt-out. They get their own choice to opt-out. So I still don’t see the logic here on how you opting out of that settlement is still at risk from aggression that doesn’t exist.
It would be hilarious if one could nuke a settlement’s combined prestige as a consequence of unwanted merger, but that’s too easily abused as a consequence as well. Just allow people to stand apart. That’s the non-aggressive way to handle it.
But to say that it’s somehow aggressive to opt out of a merged settlement is crazy talk.
it doesnt exist yet, but if your idea is makes its way onto live it will be… You have to see every change you make to fix something like this creates new issues no one considered. The plot buffers, great idea! but then the unforseen consequences appeared…
So like I said if I am connecting to your road, MY settlement opts out of yours, MY settlement should NOT be able to continue on both sides of the road as “one settlement” excluding the road in the middle.
the scenario I have entered here is more complicated than that. Please address how you would protect the interests of BOTH parties in the scenario I have mentioned.
So, the settlement’s existence is contingent to somebody else’s unwanted road? Who do you think you are, exactly? It doesn’t need special protections, it gets exactly the same protection as any other plot. Why should it supersede somebody else’s settlement?
so you are agreeing that the road would BREAK the settlement from being one… then that would be acceptable… I thought you were saying the 2 settlements each on the other side of road could still be one settlement but Exclude the road.
