Discussion: what is considered respectful vs not respectful plotting

Since this is being discussed in multiple threads and is important for the future of the game, I thought I’d make a fresh thread.

Give examples of what YOU think is respectful vs not respectful plotting. Feel free to add polls to each to aid discussion. All my polls are anonymous.

To emphasize: I’m asking what you consider respectful - not what is allowed by the rules of the game.

Ex1: making a giant (100x100 or bigger) build on a mostly empty planet in the middle of nowhere.

  • Respectful
  • Not

0 voters

Ex2: making a giant build in the middle of nowhere, but on a highly populated planet.

  • Respectful
  • Not

0 voters

Ex3: making a giant build on a populated planet next to somebody’s large build (say, within 30 plots) without contacting them.

  • Respectful
  • Not

0 voters

Ex4: making a giant build on a populated planet next to someone with their consent.

  • Respectful
  • Not

0 voters

Ex5: someone goes to a high tier planet that is not very populated and builds a huge build right next door to someone who had already built a huge, still expanding base in the middle of nowhere (without contact attempt)

  • Respectful
  • Not

0 voters

Ex6: making a world road that connects several existing settlements without consent.

  • Respectful
  • Not

0 voters

Ex7: making a world road that connects 10 settlements - you get consent from 9 with varying degrees of enthusiasm, and one hold out who is against being annexed.

  • Respectful
  • Not

0 voters

Ex8: you build a world road and get consent from 9/10 settlements you will be annexing, but one settlement hasn’t played in a month and you can’t contact them.

  • Respectful
  • Not

0 voters

Ex9: you build a world road and get consent from 9/10 settlements you will be annexing, but one settlement hasn’t played in SIX months and you can’t contact them.

  • Respectful
  • Not

0 voters

Ex10: You plot a 10x200 area right next to a major major hub and stop actively playing, but don’t build anything and refuse to give up the plots thus blocking city expansion.

  • Respectful
  • Not

0 voters

Ex11: you plot a giant nature reserve (100x100) next to a small city. That city expands and asks if you can move your nature reserve so they can keep expanding. You have nothing built in this nature reserve.

  • Should move
  • Do nothing

0 voters

Ex12: you plot out a giant area for a future build but never end up using it. It has been 6 months now. A neighbor contacts you asking if they can have it; you like the spot but you could probably find a different one, and they seem to REALLY want that spot a lot.

  • Give them the spot
  • Do nothing

0 voters

Ex13: you claim a mall spot that is really good, but never end up using it. It has been 6 months now. Either the mall owner or some other potential shopkeeper is interested in the spot. (I considered not posting this one but I think it is worth discussion. To be clear, I’m not targeting anybody by this example, it is just an important thing for us to discuss as a community IMO, like the rest.)

  • Give them the spot
  • Do nothing

0 voters

Ex14: you build a medium size road (100 plots) that’s the near anything, but a city springs up in the middle of it, probably because the road was there. The city owner asks if you can split your road into two roads so they can have their city cross the road.

  • Split the road
  • Do nothing

0 voters

Ex15: you build a small house (5x5) in what you think is an unused area, but it turns out to be in somebody’s planned expansion area. Your house blocks their roads, as it turns out. They contact you as soon as they notice, but you’ve been there for 2 weeks. They offer to help you either reshape your build to avoid roads or to help you rebuild elsewhere.

  • Reshape or rebuild
  • Do nothing

0 voters

Ex16: You have a massive build. You keep swallowing up neighboring builds with or without consent. It’s nothing personal, as you see things; you’re just expanding and playing the game.

  • Respectful
  • Not

0 voters

Ex17: Moving a major hub either far away or to a different planet without offering ALL active players the “same spots”; that is, people who were previously next to the hub don’t necessarily get spots next to the hub; some people don’t get spots at all and get “left behind” either because you charge for spots or you preplot with your friends so that people can’t join the city without your permission. I post this one not to make an example of anyone, but because I think it is a good learning example.

  • Respectful
  • Not

0 voters

Ex18: similar to above. You move your hub and give ALL active players the “same” spots relative to the hub. That is, everyone who was next to the hub gets a spot next to the hub if they want one. Nobody gets a “worse” spot. People will have to rebuild though.

  • Respectful
  • Not

0 voters

Ex19: similar to above. You move your major hub and let ALL active players have a spot near the new hub. However, you shuffle things around a bit to put active players with good shops nearer to the hub, and marginally active players slightly farther from the hub - not based on who is your friend but based on who runs a good shop.

  • Respectful
  • Not

0 voters

Ex20: Similar to above. You move your major hub but in this example, you reserve all the “best” spots for your friends and active players. After all, in your mind at least, it’s your hub and your oort. You do however let all active players plot near the hub, but some will be mad they lost their good spots. This is different from example 17 in that you don’t sell plots or use plots to block off spots or prevent road extension.

  • Respectful
  • Not

0 voters

Ex21: you build a giant city with roads and nice hubs (a new city from scratch, not moving an old city) and you preplot everything so only people you choose can be a part of it. It is not open to all.

  • Respectful
  • Not

0 voters

Ex22: you build a 10x15 lake house in the middle of nowhere as a “summer home”. You haven’t used it in 9 months. You are surprised when one day you get contacted to learn it is in the middle of a giant city and the city owner politely asks if they can have those plots. They offer to find an equally nice spot that you approve of and offer to rebuild your lake house for you, block by block. You don’t particularly need that lake house. Should you give up the plots? You could also use this as a chance to start fresh. This one isn’t respectful vs not respectful, it’s just a “what would you do” question.

  • I would let them move me (or just deplot)
  • Do nothing

0 voters

Ex23: making a medium size (say 30x30 plots) on a populated planet right next to someone’s 60x60 city (say within 30 plots) without attempting to contact them.

  • Respectful
  • Not

0 voters

Ex24: making a medium size (say 30x30 plots) on a populated planet right next to someone’s 60x60 city (say within 30 plots) even though when you contacted them, they said they plan to expand there.

  • Respectful
  • Not

0 voters

Ex25: Someone has a nice 30x30 base on Biitula and does not seem to want neighbors, as they have a decent sized buffer plotted around them. However, it is a crowded planet and there aren’t many good spots left. You build a 30x30 base within 30 plots of them without making attempt at contact.

  • Respectful
  • Not

0 voters

Ex26: similar to above. Someone has a nice 30x30 base on Biitula and does not seem to want neighbors, as they have a decent sized buffer plotted around them. However, it is a crowded planet and there aren’t many good spots left. You get in contact and they tell you they do not want neighbors. However, you can’t find another spot you like, so you build your 30x30 base near them with apologies.

  • Respectful
  • Not

0 voters

Ex27: You build a base on Galan in the best topaz spot on the planet. Your base is at 155 altitude. You built here because you want to be near topaz. Your base is 10x10 with two long hallways that are each 1x50. You use these hallways to mine topaz. This is not a public mine and your plotted blocks are blocking people when they try to mine. You even have some gem seams plotted - but just a few. If you know who I mean please don’t name and shame them.

  • Respectful
  • Not

0 voters

Ex28: as above. You build a base on Galan in the best topaz spot on the planet. Your base is at 155 altitude. You built here because you want to be near topaz. Your base is 10x10 with two long hallways that are each 1x50. You use these hallways to mine topaz. This is not a public mine and your plotted blocks are blocking people when they try to mine. You even have some gem seams plotted. Several people have politely contacted you asking to at least withdraw your long hallways, since it is costing them hammer durability when they encounter them. However, you were here first and there are lots of other topaz spots on the planet. You decide to keep your build with apologies.

  • Respectful
  • Not respectful

0 voters

Ex29: plotting a large (60x40, say) private amethyst mine in a way that prevents others from accessing the gems

  • Respectful
  • Not

0 voters

Ex30: if there were a planet that required you to be active (visit your build at least once a month and play at least 4 hours of boundless a month), would you build there? Would you object to this existing? This is based on the assumption that there would be a game mechanic that would box up and save anything that was in your build if you were “kicked for inactivity”, and you could access this box from sanctum. Sort of like an ender chest from minecraft. Assume that 31 and 32 don’t exist - for example, I voted yes for all three, since if any of these existed I would build there, though if all three existed I probably wouldn’t build at all three.

  • I would build there
  • I would not build there but don’t object
  • Do not put this in the game

0 voters

Ex31: if there were a planet that required you to be active (visit your build at least once a WEEK and play at least 4 hours of boundless a WEEK, perhaps allowing people four lapses per year), would you build there? Would you object to this existing? This is based on the assumption that there would be a game mechanic that would box up and save anything that was in your build if you were “kicked for inactivity”, and you could access this box from sanctum. Sort of like an ender chest from minecraft. Assume that 30 and 32 don’t exist.

  • I would build there
  • I would not build there but I don’t object
  • Do not put this in the game

0 voters

Ex32: if there were a planet where nobody could claim larger than 4x4 plots (you can still plot up and down), would you build there? Assume that 30 and 31 don’t exist.

  • I would build there
  • I would not build there but I do not object
  • Do not put this in the game

0 voters

Ex33: when private planets are added, what happens to your stuff if you get evicted by the planet’s owner?

  • All gone
  • Gets boxed up
  • Blueprints / I wouldn’t plot on private planets unless there are blueprints
  • Private planet owners shouldn’t be allowed to evict people once they have plotted and built

0 voters

ex15: how long have you been there ? did they contact you at the earliest opportunity? if you just started and they came to you immediately, then yes, if you have been there for 2 months and saw them running around in their part and they didn’t do anything until now, then it is up to you and they should not ask you to move
ex17: I give this one a confused shrug
ex18: if you pull that off, you get a medal
ex20: it belongs to you, but it is inconsiderate. not sure which is more important

Remade example 5 as two fresh examples

I like your approach, since it’s not a matter of black and white and context matters.
Not sure if it’s a good idea to give your take right away, that might influence votes.
Maybe add it in a post at the end if you like to share your own views.

Edit: I also think the word “respectful” is a bit misleading. Some of the cases (for example 17) are not nice or respectful, but they can be legit (depending on the view of the voter).

2 Likes

With some, like with moving a build to a new spot blabla, it depends on what the build is and if I like it, if I still have plans for it and also very much so on why they are asking it (or heck, even the person perhaps). Also depends on planet population and if theres something nearby, etc., etc.

So even tho I answered some of these with either ok/not ok it kinda depends on the situation…

1 Like

I always thought plotting is black and white. If it’s unplotted anyone can have. Regardless where it is. If u wanted it .you should of plotted it. Don’t carry on if some one plots it’s kinda there right to do what they want. Devs designed it like that. I think we take it to personal. Including myself. I constantly remind myself its a game.

7 Likes

I think it would be better if ppl had more plots - yes, more abuse potential, but also people could plot out future plans.

Currently when you build you are constrained by plots. I think it would be better to be constrained by creativity and materials. We would see more cool builds. Perhaps things would get crowded but I think it would be nice to see large builds from new players not just old players.

1 Like

Good point. I will start editing those out.

2 Likes

True. Edited the OP that I’m asking what people think is respectful, not what is black-and-white allowed by the game.

Added several new scenarios.

1 Like

This is why I pulled so many plots back buffering my city’s. I encourage more builders to come. Pleeeease come build lol. Now I get the frustration when I gave plots to someone and they never build and or plots and does not share the same vision as others. Oh well. I can move, stay, or stop playing if it hurts me this much. Maybe if I came back a year later the place will be open lol.

Omg I just got the delete button . They need to add a are you sure button .

I can’t vote in several of these because the answer isn’t “respectful” or not -.it depends on the entirety situation, communication, etc. Maybe if there was a third option: it depends, I don’t know, need more info…

I also agree that adding your answer on the end will probably skew the results and influence some. :wink:

Good poll :+1:

3 Likes

I think an option 3 for questions 27 and 28 could be useful. If someone makes a mine and allows others to easily mine hotspots I think this could be respectful. As you are creating a community service, since you are not on daily or at all times to mine. If it’s a public mine and the owner gives permissions on beacon to mine, I think it could be cool

@majorvex I’ve removed my answers
@molav I have edited 27 and 28.

I’m not being critical of posting a survey. I like the idea but I think that these questions are a perfect example of how complicated this subject is. The first two questions were cut and dry but things became more complicated further down. I’m starting to really believe that rental planets are the only way to fully resolve this issue for big builders. The question is will we be able to transfer our settlements to said planets? :thinking:

2 Likes

By design :wink:

1 Like

I sort of wondered :joy:

I’m intensely curious to see what happens with 25 and 26 as more people vote.

Having neighbors is just something that I expected from the beginning. Its being forced to merge with someone else’s settlement that I think is wrong. But I get that people have different opinions on the matter of neighbors.
I’m starting to think that this isn’t simply an innocent game but an experiment on human/societal behavior. :astonished::joy:

2 Likes

another thing. ‘30 plots away’ is a very different thing on different planets. a challenge to get that far away on biitula, but on antar it feels like a stranger sat in your lap

1 Like