Portal Seekers has just as much right to want the name for the gateway as illuminoorti has to want it for their home town. We both have lots of prestege invested. Nobody is in the wrong here. The game mechanics force us to compete for the name.
Portal seekers is not a military. Some people like to be controlled and like the structure, but portal seekers is not that kind of guild. We view all members with equality. Your proposal to remove sulfer from portal seekers will result in sulfer still having the name for your city so it doesnât actually solve your issue. This is besides the fact that portal seekers is backing sulfers actions 100% and has no reason to eject him to begin with. Again we have just as much right to that gateway as you do.
I would be glad to have some possibilities for regulating the settlement.
In another thread i discussed this, that you have absolutely no chance to get another player to integrate in your themed settlement, if the player donât want to go along with the rules.
Yes, the rules, someone stated, it is a Sandbox game and the player make the rules. But what rules? You just can hope for the polite sense of the new joiner while you talk with him about the settlement.
You can set up so many rules as you want as a settlement, but they are nothing worth as long we donât have any chance to prevail them in front of a player who simple does not care about you, your try of conversation or any rule in your settlement.
The only thing settlement owner can do at the moment to surround the guy who donât want to follow the theme. But this is in my eyes same harrassment and just lead to a bigger and higher and more ugly building, because this player can just do it.
Ahh yes, you can build walls around him/her, but for what?
Just to act eye for an eye and you still have an ugly big tower in middle of your themed settlement.
That all means, the only thing we can do at the moment is to talk with them and hoping. Or taking the own hard work down and move on to start over.
That is a bit frustrating, especially in a sandbox game, where you get all possibilities to do what ever you want, but absolutely no defending strategies except to have a big group or much money.
As bad such take overs in big cities are, as bad are these gamemechanic for small groups. The Perp will always win in this situation, because of the gamemechanics. Especially in smaller themed settlements.
Why? thats simple⌠small settlements work with a design thats often not high prestige block based, the Perp just need to build a big ugly tower, close his doors and build into this high prestige blocks. In a smaller group settlement we will see it next weeks way more often, that a named Garden, an Art Settlement or a nice medieval port gets a name like âOverp0w0redâ or âSuperH3r0sââŚ
This can not be in sense of the development, because especially smaller settlement owner maybe will think twice really to start over or maybe just move on to the next sandbox game that has better rules for casuals.
What we lose then is obvisious, we will lose a good amount of individual builds all over the world. Then there will be just big Cities and small ugly beginner buildings left in the world.
Well you clearly acknowledge itâs our home town, so how about you agree return it to us as such? Pleanty of other places on Biitula you guys could set up a portal, yet our city was chosen. Remember, we were here first. We intend to keep what is ours, at any cost, as anybody would do. The message youâre sending to the community is that
PORTAL SEEKERS WILL STEAL YOUR CITY AND DOESNâT CARE ABOUT YOU.
I donât know that any settlement would want to risk supporting further PS hubs in their communities if there is the risk of ps taking ownership of their hard work. What does everyone else who has a ps hub in their city think? Yaâll fine with that? Iâm not, and Iâll help any settlement that feels a PS hub has stolen their hard work fight back against it.
This certainly does not solve all the issues but maybe we need a border plot. This plot can be created adjacent to the settlement of the person creating the border plot, but no others. It can be built on. It must be touching a non-border plot to limit griefing. This does mean the minimum size to use them is 3x3 allowing a diagonal touch. No modification needed for the beacons. The issue is how to make a plot a border plot. I recommend creating a new plotter for them. Use the current plotters to add and remove and a different colored one to transform a plot to a border plot.
I do not believe this solves everything but if you have a way to keep from being accidentally absorbed and if you do not care, then you do nothing. You can keep you own settlement name even if another bumps into you. It might let the developers remove the current road mechanic which seems to be creating a lot of questions if you look at the forums.
This idea is not that bad.
Sideeffect, you show directly with the Border âHere ends my planned spaceâ and new people who just want to join your settlement you still can let in, if you remove the Border role of a Plot again.
So all these ideas about reservation and taking over would be solved.
And before someone say now âHey with this would be a real plot war impossible and we can not perform this playstyleâ, there are so many possibilities to counter the defense. It starts at to disable the feature on later PVP Planets and goes to time based Border in example you canât place a Border if the beacons are still connected⌠and so on.
The simplest solution would just be to have an opt in and out toggle on the master beacon that can only be changed perhaps once a month or something and then the prestige war would be more about encouraging others to join.
Canât you just build a ring at a lower altitude on a different beacon?
To join a settlement you need to connect to the plots. So if you dig down 3 plots (or lower) and just make a ringâŚthat reserves the 8 blocks on ground level.
If you ring your city in like this it creates a buffer no one can perm build on around your city. Even if someone builds down to pit a beacon near that ring, since the ring doesnât touch your city they can only take over the name of the ring. Allowing you to subdivide large areas. As such your city can never be renamed, taken over.
Seems like a quick fix for a city with a lot of members / plots!
I want to test it on liveâŚsince it works theretically. It would protect all cities and outposts from being taken over!
I feel like you are intentionally misrepresenting the situation here and would like to lay out the facts as I know them about it.
We were unaware of the location of your city when the gateway was built. As far as I am aware there was build nearby the landing site on the planet and a distance of roughly 30 plots was left between the 2 build. There was no indication that the build was anything more than a 1 off random build that I know of.
EDIT: Found out that 1 is false.
Portal Seekers did not bridge the gap to merge the 2 settlements, it was done by random players settling around the gateway and your settlement.
The prestige of the warden you are complaining about was a sole effort by that player and not at all related to any sort of concentrated intent from Portal Seekers to hijack the settlement.
I was just thinking about the same thing or go up three then out 1. . unless someone builds at that height you have a buffer. In fact if you have the plots you can build ring around this with your own plots 1 plot deep and even if they do get absorbed your settlement is protected.
Edit: I would prefer a developer solution but this might work in the interim.
More freaking drama⌠Your aware that when you posted this the Town was neither Portal Seeker OR IlluminatiâŚ
However, I spent some time and built⌠and re- took control as well you could have done the same!!!
Put on your big boy pants and go play the game the way it is intended to be playedâŚ
Simple solution. Adjust plots such that the settlements are no longer connected. As mentioned by a few people, plot a buffer ring to prevent reconnecting. Problem solved and no need for drama or name calling.
This allows illuminoorti and ps to each control the name of their areas.
They must of changed plot connections since pre 1.0 as my main home on Therka was built on top of a small mountain and vertically there was at least an 8 plot gap between any neighbours but we still connected as a settlement because when you looked down in plan view we were next to each-other.
We chose this spot in an attempt to help with your guildâs travel immediately after the wipe. We communicated with you to find a location you would be happy with. You thanked us for doing it.
Let me tell you a story of a player whoâs building his shop and helping his guild. He had built up a bunch of prestige on his own to become the warden of his settlement. He was very proud of his accomplishments, until one day a competing big guild came in and stole his settlement. Obviously he was very distraught by this so he worked to increase his prestege to maintain warden of HIS settlement that he had worked so hard for, basically constantly since release. This other guild then proceeded to threaten his guild, saying that he should be removed from the guild. The guild met and discussed the idea of changing the name, and the idea of removing the player from the guild. The player who had spent all this time just building his shop felt justifiably betrayed that the idea was even considered!
How do you think this guy feels? Some big guild coming in and demanding he change his settlement name that he worked so hard for? How is that fair? You guys claim to be the smaller group getting stomped on by Portal Seekers, when YOU guys are the ones that are trying to stomp on the small settlement of a couple players.
Bottom line is there are two sides to this story, and Portal Seekers has tried our best to communicate the game mechanics to Illuminorti. If you guys are angry about the game mechanics, please focus your smear campaign at the game, and not at a group of hard-working players who have been nothing but kind, and have done nothing but try to help you guys travel.
luca had described this earlier I canât find it but settlement detection happens from a top-down 2D view and looks only at claimed plots and not at beacons. The arrangement within a beacon doesnât matter. The only way to separate two settlements would be to not claim/reserve the space in-between from a top-down 2D view. At which point some random guy will come in be all like âWOW this is prime real-estate between two popular cities!!!â and boom: game over.
This is false, as we were in contact prior to the hub being placed. Xaldafax already had a large swath of plots placed around our city prior to the hub going up 2 days prior to the hub beginning.
This is irrelevant to the issue at hand, a random player is not to blame here, natural growth of both regions was inevitably going to happen. The issue at hand is the lack of respect for our home town and the continued efforts to disrespect our guild by insisting on renaming our settlement as [PS] property.
Then the [PS] can surely understand why we are angry at a single member hijacking our colaborative efforts. if [ps] did not endorse this action, they could simply ask the person to stop. Simoyd instead did the opposite, fully endorsing the action and made this a guild v guild incident.
Thatâs because we removed the ]i[ tag as good faith, and renamed the settlement in a manner that reflected a colaborative effort. You effectively proved that all that matters to [PS] is that you own one more guild capital.
So get the knot out of your ltitle girl panties and choke on your self righteous bravado, your motives are apparent and your objectively in the wrong here.
