I think it might help if communities could choose to specialize, if they want to instead of just becoming one big settlement with vague blanket permissions/controls.
Once a town meets certain criteria:
20 +/- beacons placed by different players
1 million+/- prestige
(there should prob be another condition? Ideas?)
An option appears on the main beacon/settlement control to designate the town as a specific zone:
A. Residential - all residents receive a +10% bonus in footfall, buffers & plot reservations can be set to all-on or all-off
B. Commerce - all residents receive a +10% bonus in sales commissions for anything sold from a shop stand (this should help with encouraging people to not leave empty shop stands and to not use them for storage), mix/max plot sizes can be set, & plot reservations & buffers can be set to all-on or all-off
C. Industrial - all residents receive a +10% bonus on any item crafted on a machine, buffers & plot reservations can be set to all-on or all-off
D. Lock it/leave it set to the default mixed-use zone.
Neat, great idea! One thing I can think, just have it so you donât lose it unless you go WAY below any of the requirements (like half or less) once you have it (though maybe not allow a change it type until regained)⌠otherwise a few people quitting or a falling out like sometimes happens could cause a lot of chaos.
Yeah, I think thatâs a risk that all towns/communities take when they start building. Things do change sometimes and we canât stop it, just roll with it lol
Is main idea here to lock buffers behind these meet options? Isnât this just causing more merges by heavy prestige builds to plot other beacons into them to get buffer?
When you go to place a beacon, a pop-up could say âThis is a residential zone.â
If the entity has set any specific conditions/ordinances/etc, that should be specified:
âThis is a commerce zone. Maxium lot size allowed = 12. Sales bonus = 10%. Permission X = on.â
Maybe consider it like becoming a Boundless Affiliate District - if you meet all of the parameters, then you can either select a zone to lock in, lock in the gameâs default all zone setting, or possibly send a request to a mod/dev to manually grant âzone statusâ. This would be locked in & only change if the main beacon were to go wild.
Seems like this would take some of the micro-managing off of the devâs shoulders and turn it into more of a macro situation.
After reading suggestion again, I think this should be more beacon alignment option that is locked after zone requirement has met with some joining and merging rules.
For example to join with beacon to formed zone, beacon would forced to lock into selected zone type, so that removing beacon and joining again to zone would take existing type.
This would lead that only âroad ownerâ could destroy zone by destroying plotted area, so that area isnât anymore connectedâŚ
Maybe bonuses could grow with more (active) beacons.
I do not like or support the idea of bonuses being locked behind arbitrary player count requirements, especially a bonus that alters the output of crafting machines.
We already have this with Guilds. Only large groups with lots of coin can afford to activate and receive the largest bonuses. I donât find this fair, but itâs part of the game.
I did not support that idea either, and wrote more then a few posts about how I feel about that. but at least with most of the buffs, it is possible for a small group or even a solo player to turn on the buff, it might be an unreasonable cost to that player to do so, but it is possible, I still do not like or support the idea.
Your idea however, simply says no, A solo player or a small group of players cannot get this bonus, because it requires X amount of players, if the small group of players happens to be just a few short of X, well that forces them to miss out on it, or do things they might not want to do.
I just donât see why such bonuses need to be locked behind an player count requirement of X
It is, but why doses that mean we need to expand further on the questionable function, and push the feel of the game further down that path?
You can still be a solo player. You can do your own thing - no forced anything.
If you do decide to participate in MMO activities, you can reap some benefits.
You can have a home in a large residential city, reap the benefits, and still have your other solo home out in the hills on your own place.
You can have a solo home out somewhere, but build a shop within a large commerce zone & reap that 10% bonusâŚ
Add a satellite workshop with your most-used machine in an industrial zone to reap the 10% bonus
While yes technically valid, it changes the logistical situation, forces the player to play in a certain area to be able to get the most out of crafting and promotes people who do not want to build next to other people to do so.
With the garbage fires we have seen with the many many plotting problems and people screaming to the high heavens when warden is taken away or the city is renamed, People here seem to scream Rape the moment anyone touches their plots, blocks their path, or even looks at the plots the wrong way. Adding a function to promote people to join up together who might not really want to join up together but are only doing so for a bonus. It might just turn the Garbage fires we are having in to full blown Dumper fires.
Iâm trying to come up with a solution that benefits as many people as possible. We badly need a logistical/fundamental change or this stuff is just going to get worse and worse.
Yes, it somewhat rewards people for participating in positive behaviors that benefit the game and future players.
How many people already do this in a low-key way? A lot of people & solo players have all of their main stuff off somewhere else, while they have a small shop or something else within a large city to reap the rewards of more sales or more footfall.
People might get along better if they are able to settle among more like-minded people. ieâŚif you like to mainly craft things, consider joining an Industrial community & reap the bonuses for your hard work.
Then donât put âRequires X amount of playersâ As I think that goes against trying to benefit as many players as possible. It is not needed, Now if we were talking about required players to enter a Dungeon, then having a player requirement makes a lot more sense in that regards,
>> Non-Main points Compacted for space saving purposes <<
Sales and footfall, ties hand to hand with player count, If you want footfall then you kind of need to build in an area that will cause players to walk on it, if you want to sell items, then you kind of either need to build in a place where players will notice it, or find some other way to attract players to your shop stands
Crafting items doses not link to that, it also doesnât require other players to do, it in no way is dependent on other players, therefore I see little reason to try to turn it into something that is dependent on other players at this time. Now if we had a crafting machine that required 2 or more players to operate or otherwise you could not do anything with it, then it would make a little more sense
Which is why I am mostly against the crafting bonus you suggest, and less against the footfall bonus and sales bonus as the latter would just happen on its own with out players changing how the behave much. So that part makes a little bit of sense,
One thing I can think, just have it so you donât lose it unless you go WAY below any of the requirements (like half or less) once you have it (though maybe not allow a change it type until regained)⌠otherwise a few people quitting or a falling out like sometimes happens could cause a lot of chaos.
would really enjoy having âbonusâ districts in settlements, would help with organizing group builds too