It could, or it could be guild aligned. Guild aligned beacon don’t need to touch to still share prestige. This is not a special condition, and the splitting road does not even need to factor in.
2 Likes
Guild is a special situation
BUT non guild affiliated beacons on the 2nd side of the road would NOT be part of the “whole” settlement…
Yeah, that’s the point. If they want to be a combined settlement, they can. If they don’t want to be, they don’t have to be. Proximity doesn’t need to factor in here.
1 Like
In stead of adding layers and layers of wonky code to prevent settlement merges, can we just get private planets please?
4 Likes
As long as there are two greater beacons at a reasonable distance there should be an option to opt in/out regardless of guild alignment/lack of to a settlement of their choosing. Forcing any annexation or control of settlement separation via roads/plots should be and could be eliminated if a system such as the one described above exists.
1 Like
Also a good idea, however the live servers will still have the issue we see. We could all run away from it or help fix it so rental planets would be an option not a necessity.
2 Likes
This doesn’t add layers of code, just refines the existing system. Opt Out would simply remove a beacon or settlement from consideration to be merged.
3 Likes
anyways unless proper protections are given to all parties this idea will likely never be implemented…seems certain the Developers learned with the plot buffers that unforseen consequences can be dramatic.
Anyways was fun talking about it…
I’ve never been a big fan of force merges either though, I dislike all negative and hostile styles of play.
6 Likes
It’s literally exactly the protections that are already in place… no additional protections are needed, just the option to opt out of consideration.
2 Likes
The only issue with the buffer was the fact that it wasn’t in place before the first beacon was placed.
5 Likes
I have a road. My road and your settlement touch so we become 1 settlement. You opt out and that means we are two settlements. This works as intended then. If someone comes and tries to build on the other side of the road and touch the road, then those two settlements merge. The original settlement you owned wouldn’t be part of this because you opted out.
So again, I still don’t see why that matters or what you are trying to get at… sorry… This isn’t about other people’s beacons. This is about the beacon you own and whether you want to be part of the settlement in your area or not.
2 Likes
Krasny did brought up a point tho, although we mainly concern ourselves with plots touching also plots that don’t touch like he described beacons split by other beacons or roads.
I’d say make a selection tab for opt in/out with a set distance. IE. 10 plots. As long as the beacons are 10 plots apart they can opt in to a near by settlement even though a beacon is in the middle. This would help both beacons on either side of the road and the road owner.
1 Like
If you opt out of my road I’d be completely fine with that. I build roads for myself not for anyone else 
. If others use it cool. But it’s not really for them. It’s for my personal use. Plus look at the roads in your area. Some of them go thru multiple towns and maybe even counties. Some times the road name stays the same and some times it doesn’t. To me it just sounds like you want no one to have their own identity if they get near a road that they may or may not have asked for.
3 Likes
I still don’t see good enough reason why game should be added this option.
Best example what I was able to think was already build buffer area between two existing builds which could be set to neutral so that 3rd party couldn’t come to mess up made agreement to not merge.
Then I did think that could this opt-in/out make even easier to build mini settlement to generate footfall. It is already now quite possible to do these mini settlements and deactivate merging by 3rd party with alts, but after change this suggested option, wouldn’t this cause new footfall meta to split beacons in high traffic areas. Or does ff already now work like this I thought there was made to work one beacon per settlement would generate it for player?
I would like to see improved road detection system, based on central of great settlement plot and prestige density to reduce merges. Manual optin/out could work but I see it so that it would already been fixed by other ways that have come to game.
I would like to get some examples that I would understand how one more option that is almost similar to existing methods would make difference.
Didn’t ULT suffer from some issues that would have been solved by an opt out. As I’m no longer active in ULT I can’t really comment on what happened. But I’m sure @Hashmalash could weigh in and at least say if the problem would have been fixed by that.
2 Likes
Two beacons per settlement per character 
2 Likes
Unfortunately I think many players left because of this (and obviously other reasons). Plus we have many static settlements and those annexing are doing it slowly. So there isn’t as much visibility to the problem, but it still exists if you ask privately. Not to mention if we ever do get an increase of new players this problem will show up again… so that is what we need to fix it and other game issues now.
3 Likes
I think there should be manual opt out. Look at any major city and you’ll find unaffiliated towns completely encircled by city. Boston is a good example, there’s Boston Cambridge Watertown newton Brookline Quincy etc all in what I would consider “city limits”. People should be able to decide to be in a city or not. Their choice.
4 Likes
On a side note if I remember right FF is being hurt more by centralized cities that cover planets or are huge. I kind of remember the rules being 1 person per settlement for all your beacons. A super city gives you more coin for that person but you lose out on multiple hits across multiple cities if you merged all those cities. At least I think that was how the FF ended up in the final pass.
2 Likes