HELP! Give us your opinion on automatic protection zones around beacons?


#102

@Kirinvar Thank you for providing a mapped reference. I think you made some great points all around.


#103

thats why i also voted no, i wonder who is voting yes on that.

please think mindfull on this, at all iit will not solve the problems at all, just shift them into bigger sizes.
ppl then will complain about being walled in by protection, and ppl will start spam more ugly gleam towers

the system as it is now is maybe not the best, but this would be even more worse…
ppl would just claim / protect bigger areas, more problems will arise etc.
actually there is no real solution to this problem, and there will never be
.
ppl will allways complain about others being nearby, building in a style they dont like etc.
thats just how it is…

please dont waste development time in such things :> give us more content instead, specially on the mid game phase (content that does not let level 20 people with iron weapon feel like they need to farm stuff from t5 worlds)


#104

Definite “No” vote.


#105

Some of these later replies do make me look at this differently. And i agree, this could end up causing more problems and confusion on how the system works in the long run. Going to change my vote to no.

I voted yes initially because in a perfect world where people actually know how to communicate and are willing to do so, it makes sense. Unfortunately that is not the world we live in :confused:


#106

Some sort of offline messaging system (mailbox or otherwise) would do more to resolve legitimate, reasonable, non-griefing land disputes than this system.

As it stands right now, if your neighbor lives in a different time zone than you, there’s little chance of ever even seeing them, let alone opening up communications to sort out land disputes, and if one (or both) of the parties doesn’t visit the forums regularly (or at all) then it is literally impossible to go the civilized route of resolving those issues.

This then leaves the people involved in those disputes frustrated, leading to the several recent posts complaining of this sort of stuff on the forums, giving the dev team the impression (based on faulty player input) that the problem is with the plotting system rather than the lack of options for communication.

Perhaps they should give priority to an offline messaging system before resorting to the buffer system to see if that would hit closer to the heart of the problem, along with a review and rebalancing of prestige values of blocks (I think most people would agree that is badly needed).

I still think it would be a nice feature but it ‘protects’ the (often small) lone beacon builds more than it does cities and settlements. If I understand it correctly, it would be a circuitous way of having a two-way authorization process for beacon absorption into settlements, but I don’t think it would do much (or anything) for city owners that want to have their unplanned expansions without having to spend plots to reserve area beforehand (which is a common trend of complaints recently).


#107

Yea i think the offline messaging could definitely help. You’ll still run into that stubborn person every now and then but if you reach out and avoid being rude about it a lot of people will probably be willing to accommodate you.


#108

I believe greybeard makes a very valid point that players can already plot a barrier around their build.

However, the issue with that is the outrageous number of extra plots it takes to create your own barrier, that is why I like the idea proposed by the devs.

I also like the idea of being able to plot a “reserved plot” for 1/3 of a plot as mentioned by someone else here.


#109

This made me think. Since we can all agree that ease of obtaining prestige with relatively simple to obtain (and spam) blocks could lead to problems (which is why I think prestige values need a balance pass) perhaps the buffer area could be proportional in some fashion to the volume of plots that a build is already using horizontally.

Say, a 1 plot around the plotted area as buffer for every 100 plots of horizontal area (or whatever number to be discussed and balanced later). In your opinion would this improve the system enough to merit at least a ‘maybe’ vote?

I think there are valid uses for this, and it is still … less preferable than plots, since it’s just a ‘protected’ area, still subjected to regeneration, so it can’t be used to build or anything, serving literally only as a buffer.

Personally, I don’t even see the need for the buffer area to scale based on anything. A flat 1 plot ‘circle’ around plotted areas that can be turned on and off at will is sufficient to stop other plots from touching (and absorbing) your beacon / settlement without authorization in all cases that I can think of.

Edit: And that, @PiratenBraut, is the use case scenario that led me to vote yes, not all the nonsense about calling dibs on unclaimed land without plotting. :slight_smile: This is what can’t be prevented by plotting, because then people just have to touch THOSE plots to absorb you, and if you add more plots around those plots… well, ad infinitum.


#110

For all of you who don’t know why someone would vote for it, here is why I am. As a primarily solo builder who fully plots the area I want before I build, I don’t have to worry about settlement merging with this system. No matter what I do, or anyone else does in the current system, you can be prestige bombed.

With a chisel and refined stone or gleam, anyone can take over a normal settlement. It is not difficult if you have the plots. If nobody can hook them up to me, I am safe. Thus, it solves my only problem from the way I understand it.

Edit: opt out would fix it too.


#111

Easy there, that’s your opinion.

This is a good point, I wholeheartedly agree.
Offline messaging and block value rebalance is DESPERATELY needed.


#112

100% disagree. The devs created tools, and weapons to. They designed the game with prestige and block values. Just because something needed balanced doesn’t mean it was wrong.

Also , just because griefers find a way to encroach on others and players figure out ways around diff scenarios, does NOT at all mean “we” created the problem by having a system other people try to abuse. That’s backward thinking at its core.

In fact, there is absolutely NOTHING that this idea could Possibly EVER do to harm you in any way. If you don’t mind getting prestige bombed, there is an opt out button like James said. Boom, just like it was before. So you get to have it your way.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------below this line is in general though, not at “reply”

I would go as far as saying, The only people who don’t like this may be the very people trying to take over other peoples settlements. Because there is nothing negative or wrong with it. Its a perfect set of principles to balance out human problems. Everyone can set the setting to how they want to. Don’t like it , turn it off. Do not down vote this because you want other people to not have the protection. (this last part is to anyone in general, not a reply.)


#113

Really dude? Don’t “easy there” someone. Don’t you understand how offensive and completely rude that is. This post is ABOUT PEOPLE’S OPINIONS, hence why James asked for them!

I think you didn’t understand my point and I have no idea where the “we” you talk about came from. I was talking about the developers. They created the issue by designing Prestige and various ways encouraging people to build together. This solution just increases the drama between players in a variety of ways that I outlined. And yes players abuse the current system and they will certainly abuse this system even more because now you just need some prestige and all these free buffer plots you get to mess with people, their settlements, and any land you want access to.

Also, I never said the problem harmed me. I said it wasn’t solving anything only adding another dimension to the problem. Whether a person turns it off or not the issue will still exist.

Why are you trying to make the people that are against this as the problem or ones that are trying to abuse the current system. That is pretty presumptuous.

I’ve talked to plenty of people that don’t try to take over settlements and clearly see how this solution doesn’t help anything. They see the negative with the solution and understand why it isn’t really helpful.

We should be solving problems not adding additional programing to the game that just increases the issue…

This is total unfair to assume people down vote the idea because they don’t want other people to have the protection.


#114

wow calm down, you’re the one trying to force your opinion on others.


#115

We should strive to keep things civil and productive on both sides of the discussion. A lot of important issues are being talked about here and it would be a shame if the moderators were forced to lock the thread. :slight_smile:


#116

prestige and footfall isn’t a problem. It’s how it’s interpreted by others.Some people like yourself feel, that prestige and footfall is the issue. Others like myself feel it just needed some better guidlines and protections, for the number one thing complained about, and that’s the encroaching plots that are not welcomed by some players. This thread is about plots, and beacon controls, something the majority has been asking for since there were beacons.

I like the idea of more controls, as do the majority of the voters up there. Can’t go wrong with a little protection. If one wants it. My humble opinion is that this is the step in the right direction.


#117

If the system can work in this way, I definitely say YES to this.


#118

Just to make one thing clear i have not been reading the posts just saying what i think.

In general the idea is covering enough drama that can be eliminated also it makes people think twice if they build next to someone whitout asking.

  1. People that build nice citys will have safty from trolls (trolls = you dont ask if it is ok to build next to someone)
  2. It covers the wish for later expansion
    3.it motivates people to get more prestige and gives some more purpuse to prestige other then just be third in the prestige list of a planet.
  3. Its impossible to have the perfect system
  4. You dont have to have plots bought for reserving space so your plots can be managed better

I think james you guys have worked out a very good solution and it needs to be implemented. Honestly i was surprised how good this idea is. You guy are great. :+1:


#119

I think most people need to be able to place beacons under each other. To be able to build a multi-storey settlement. Adding a beacon function to allow the addition of other beacons in your reserved areas. That would be great.


#120

I would propose that the system works on a settlement basis, not a beacon basis because all it takes is one person with it off in your settlement to negate the entire system.
The warden has the option to turn it on and off. While it’s on the warden can whitelist who he wants to allow in the settlement. People in the settlement can all plot next to each other and anywhere they want, however they cannot plot next to someone who isn’t on the whitelist and people not on the whitelist can’t plot next to anyone connected to the settlement.

This only counts for plots people are placing connected to the settlement. Of course they’re free to plot next to whoever they want outside the settlement but won’t be able to connect those plots back into the settlement if they’re connected to someone not on the whitelist.

Turning the whitelist on in an existing settlement adds everyone already in the settlement to the whitelist, so no having to search for everyone’s name beforehand.

Also an option to whitelist nearby settlements for when they actually do want to merge. The new settlement after the merger again has everyone on the whitelist already.

This stops people inadvertently allowing connections by not having it on, stops the whole issue of engulfing small settlements by accident and there’s no issue with 3-4 People all having an area blocked or blocking space over roads


#121

I definitely think this is a good refinement of the idea. It can stop someone from surrounding a smaller build since the protection zone would stop when it hit the other persons plots. It does allow cities to use roads and such without making it overly difficult using the permissions but still using the protection zones to give the city someplace to expand.

I am not sure what the developers are thinking on how merging is affected by the protection plots. My recommendation would be protection plots are not considered in a merge. If a protection block belonging to settlement A touches a plot or a protection plot belonging to settlement B, then the two settlements do not merge. Only regular plots touching (according to the established method) can create a merge of two settlements. This would provide a method for settlements to avoid merging, if it was important enough to them to set up the beacon permissions and protection plots.