I wish I had a solution. I would honestly offer it. I am just sharing my opinion with the group on my thoughts to adding another toggle to the system.
I have had many conversations with folks trying to figure out beacon issues and another toggle is another confusing step. I mean, when everyone understands it completely and everyone speaks the same language it is easier.
But the current system is difficult to explain and frustrating to troubleshoot. Another toggle would add to that.
I hope this discussion results in feedback or an idea that would remedy the confusion and simplify the situation while also addressing the merging issue.
But if it is just a toggle added then I politely point out the system is very complex already, please not another toggle.
If the opt-out system enters the game, there has to be a way to protect already existing settlements from the opt-out system being abused in some way to negatively affect a settlement, opt-out shouldn’t be activated if the beacon is part of a settlement that has more that one beacon on it, and if you plot too close to an already exciting town, city, etc, the beacon can’t opt-out, to opt-out the plots should be 10 to 5 plots ways from the town, and then you can go ahead and plot close to the town if you want to without the settlements merging.
Although that’s an issue is not really pertaining to the topic at hand. The main issue we experience since EA is mergers. Maybe removing all that ■■■■ that added(buffers, alignments) and just a simple opt in/out woulda been best?
While I don’t have every specific of the settlement server layer, it is just a basic adjustment to tell that layer to ignore your beacon when it does the math to add settlements together to create the larger settlement.
Plus I’m the type of person in that if there are complications at that level we would try to simplify the design. I just don’t think complexity is a reason that should matter here when there is so much conflict in what plots and settlements cause.
This is a much more simple layer than weather, lighting, and some of the other things people want changed in this game… I can respect your view though but I know your build isn’t in the same situation as many other people that can’t get away from the conflict or clear trolling or building beside people to take their prestige.
Note that some of the other things mentioned about roads and buffers, etc is a result of the original issue. Had the opt-out existed I think we would have less merging.
How would you envision an opt out beacon within a city as an issue
As I mentioned above a option to opt in would be perfect to scan near by settlements with a certain radius and allow you to join it regardless of beacons between.
We should probably get the language correct here then to clarify. It seems you are concerned about Cities and not settlements directly. An Opt-Out cannot affect any settlement unless it surround its. If it surrounds it then that is a CoC issue and it can be removed. Otherwise no settlement is at all effect in any way at all by an opt-out.
Cities might be effected but honestly that is a non-issue now because of the buffer system. If people leave or plots open up, the buffer system can break up a City into individual settlements. So yes that is a concern… but for many people think we need to redesign Cities anyway using some other system.
Why? Because the current design isn’t really creating a true city - it is just taking settlements near each other and making a city. And to be honest, some of those people don’t even want to be part of the city.
The primary reason a person wants to keep a city is either because they are the Mayor and their ego is important, or they are trying to abuse and take advantage of the prestige system to get the most footfall or become Viceroy of the planet. Cities don’t really provide any benefit to the game so we shouldn’t be stopping things that help remove conflict from the game.
If someone that controls a beacon that takes up about 25% of the city, decides to opt-out the beacon cutting off a whole section of the city, all because there was a fight between the leaders or something, that person may think twice before unplotting a section of town but that person opt-out a beacon and then leaves for a month, preventing anyone from connecting to the settlement in that section of town. Until a dev removes the plots or beacon goes out.
I think I get the point of what is being said…for a scenario where there is already an existing city/hub and someone new plots in or near it, they will enjoy the roads, portals, etc…that they shouldn’t have the option to opt out since they decided to move into the area or near the hub.
Same thing happens now people leave and people cant use them plots. But like I mentioned twice now, along with the opt out there should be an opt in option to preserve cities as you mentioned.
I see opt-out as the solution the boundaries should have been. it was mentioned before, but was not what the dev’s put the time into. I’m all in favor of opt out of settlement, I still like the idea of making a patchwork city of smaller cities, but the auto merging keeps that dream dead.
Would you prefer for someone to opt-out a whole section of your city cutting that section off from the rest for months, or for the beacon to unfuel it self eventually, or someone just unploting everything?
What do you mean cutting it off? The beacon will be there regardless unless they build a some 0-255 altitude dome around it. Regardless of the opt out system the fuel WILL need to run out for the land be repurpose again. The only difference is I was able to see what my city looks like without that beacon (prestige wise) months before his beacon runs out or gets manually removed by the owner.
I don’t think I completely understand your reasoning for your concerns regarding the opt out system. Do you want people to be angry at each other but remain under the same settlement? That to me would just create further internal conflict with both parties trying to beat one another to gain control of the settlement.
Sure, it’s theirs to do with as they please. It’s not like it becomes impassible terrain, just a region of plots with a different city name. It’s not harmful to anybody.
Let’s be VERY clear on how this can only happen – The person that did the opt-out has completely surrounded the WHOLE city in one of the halves you talk about. If that didn’t happen then this can easily be fixed by a few plots that go around that “opt-out person” and reconnect the city.
Minimal issue compared to a much bigger issue of settlement conflict and weaponization, etc.
It can cut off people since you have to be touching to be part of a settlement. To use old blacklight as an example, if I would have opted-out I could have kept about 10 people from being part of blacklight because I had them surrounded by roads. Yes, you could physically walk across my roads, but I just effectively cut off three blocks of people from being part of a major city they helped create since they are no longer attached to it. It has pretty high drama potential.
This can be used for bad too. Case in point You have created a thriving city you took folks in when new, helped them build up their stuff and yours. You get this one dude and (we all know theres always one) he decides hey weve got more prestige if we opt out of his city we can take it on over ourselves and this will be ours. He convinces some folks maybe through deception or whatever means like “grass is greener” mentality then this original guy/you and maybe his couple friends get the shaft just because greed or dislike.
That is my one worry about the system, if someone owns several roads, everyone was fine with it, they were nice roads and kept walls from being built, then that player doesn’t want to be in the city, wants to be a jerk, or just disables the roads from being part of the city, anyone surrounded by the roads couldn’t be in the city anymore.
It could work the same way as the reserve boundaries so that roads don’t have the ability to cut off the city limits, just not themselves be counted in the settlement. Then all you would have is the annoyance of the settlement name popping up a couple times every time you cross the said road.
Trying to click-drag the screen to read more and I voted "yes’ -_-
OP I want to mention that, leveraging the IDEA of people “leaving” the game, or simply stating that some people have left due to problems like this is an underhanded tactic. It’s pointing at shadows on the wall and saying “look! ALLL these people agree!” … you should be able to pitch an idea, a well thought out idea, that uses all of your brains and knowledge about the game, the players, the issue at hand - to argue your point.
This issue - is one the reasons I don’t want to join a catch-all guild. Not only do they not need another newb’s “help”, but these giant Reno Nevada’s are really nasty looking. I’m guessing that these places, these malls, giant shopping center cities are where these issues come from. I’ve been to a couple cities that were really cool, just a shame that usually there is a whole other castle/mini city/giant ‘F-OFF’ building in the sky RIGHT there next to them, just turfing the atmosphere of the place. I’m new, so the sovereignty and footfall thing is a mystery to me, but with ALL these planets and all this land, why do we need to cluster together? … I enjoy finding vast reaches of space on my home world. I’ve notice PS is plotted right on top of a weird sounding project that reminds me of this issue… The egos involved in these game clans/guilds are the same across all games to me, they are all, very, …potent.
I’m in favor of a more simple solution. I don’t think features need to be coded in, but there should maybe be some staff review process. This is an MMO after all, GMs happen in games like this - so maybe there needs to be some review process for disputes. It’s just amazing to me that there would be this level of politics in a PVE game, but hey, here it is.
Hmmm. We’ve not had these types of issues at the mall. It’s actually happening around popular city/hub areas, to my knowledge. Seems like the worst problems arise when people decide to leave an area or don’t want to be part of the larger conglomerate that they’re in anymore
Because that’s one way people can get/earn maximum footfall($) in the game & busy areas provide easy access to portal networks for fast/free traveling. Otherwise, humans in general tend to group up with like-minded people or want to be part of a community. For some, the community aspect makes the game for them. For others, they prefer to play solo.
