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.
The issue becomes more prominent when your house and that open space is suddenly taken over by other players and your home is now part of that giant Reno Nevada. What do you do then? Leave?
I understand the concerns but people don’t fall victim to those raising all the red flags against this idea.
Remember that some people have more interest in keeping their city for footfall and allowing people to quit the game and be taken over by annexation. They enjoy the conflict and aren’t willing to make the game better because it is in their interest and they gain from this conflict. They all know how much drama the issue was and yet raise warning signs for something that is of minimal risk and something that can already be done with buffers.
Yes there is 1 issue with the opt-out in breaking up a city but that is small compared to the amount of annexation and other attacks people have done to force people into their city. People should see this as 1 step towards a bigger solution for better settlement design. That issue can be fixed over time.
We need people to see past their own bias about settlement annexation and how many people quit because of that. They should provide answers on how to solve the issue they see or give a better design option and try to get the devs to put it in place. This approach would be better for the game than just shooting down an idea with concerns.
First off, it is no “idea” and instead “is fact.” Second, that is a complete mis-representation of what I am doing. I can understand that you might have this view because you are new so I won’t hold it against you or anything. My point was to remind people of how many posts we have had and how many people have left because some in this community forget how serious this issue has been even in EA.
Since you are new, I’d suggest spending a bit more time on trying to understand the details around the settlements and annexation and the problems people have seen before you throw your hat into the ring on the solution. This is a complicated area of the game that has a variety of reasons and views on both sides… My view is the way it is because I’ve provided more than enough data in a variety of posts and spent countless hours of my time working to understand the problem and help solve it over the course of many years – not to mention spent time directly talking to James about the issue.
I’m attempting to build on the idea, not shoot it down. I remember when guilds were introduced it broke up several cities I was in at the time. some of them never recovered due to it. between that and a hostile take over a week or two later made me quit building in a group with people for a very long time.
If the goal is to keep/attract old and new players alike, we need to take all bias’ into account, not just make changes “for the greater good” because that is just as easy of a way to push people away as any other. I’m not saying in the least to cater to people wishing to be aggressive or hurt others, but unless you fully vet a new system the side effects could hurt just as bad as the bad behavior of another individual.
I completely agree. There are many factors and design issues that lead to the problem. Unfortunately we aren’t going to get the development time needed to refactors settlements across the board right now with the other demands they have. So I was just trying to get a small tweak (like we did with buffers) to help a bit more in cutting down issues and those new people that just leave because of this drama…
I’d hope later next year we could get a better revamp and solve more… AFTER they released their current work load and plans for the next 6 months, etc.
I agree, its part of the brainstorming and development processes for nearly any important decision. I don’t really have any skin in the settlement game, I just want to make sure that concerns are voiced to give those who want this idea time to come up with ideas.
And before it is said, I have no idea how to fix the settlement issues because most of them are people based and not mechanic based.
Edit: To clarify, concerns that are brought up and dropped on a think tank can fix a lot of issues early before they become problems.
Fair… but what are the options to stop the splitting of a settlement? We already have guild books and buffers now yet we still see people more and more annex and force prestige grouping.
So if we cannot revamp the server layer because of the coding it would take do we just ignore the issue and continue to allow conflict and people quitting or do we at least try to fix something as a next step?
I’m open to ideas on how to solve the concerns but I don’t have an answer right now… I just have this first answer…
Perhaps a compromise…Implement these new changes on New worlds going forward… people then would be able to fully plan with the changes in mind…which the older planets really do not have that luxury
subjective, I saw a lot more of this in November of 2018 than I have lately, a population burst could bring a large spike of it maybe though so I can’t agree its more of an issue now before those systems were put in place, but I do agree it is still an ongoing issue.
would go a long way in preventing settlements from being broken up too aggressively, it would be a patch-up job though, just like you said, serious work would be needed to truly fix the underlying system and I don’t think that is in the cards for a while.
the other way to try and help keep things together could be something like guild aligned beacons within each others plot reserve space would always go to the same settlement or something like that. makes neighbors possible with different cities, but keeps someone in the middle from keeping one settlement broken apart. Even that could be too much code though, so I’m not sure.
I do want an Opt-out function, I just don’t want the issues I had witnessed when guilds were introduced.
but that isn’t fair for the players on the existing planets who do not have the option to move, for reasons such as having massive builds that would be to hard to tear down and rebuild, locking them out of having autonomy with their own settlements just because they settled on the current worlds isn’t a good solution or compromise.
Well since my post was flagged… I’ll explain it a little easier… If you don’t like who is around you: move. If you want to name your own settlement: build more to prestige higher: simple. Also it’s a game not real life nothing in this game effects you in real life
Honestly this was the best solution here. In my opinion you can already claim to a guild and have a separate settlement- there isn’t much reason to prioritize something like this as a roll-out across all the planets again and make all the settlements already existing get complicated.
