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.
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. 
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.
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.
Easy there, that’s your opinion.
This is a good point, I wholeheartedly agree.
Offline messaging and block value rebalance is DESPERATELY needed.
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.)
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.
wow calm down, you’re the one trying to force your opinion on others.
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. 
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.
If the system can work in this way, I definitely say YES to this.
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.
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. 
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.
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
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.
I’m fairly sure the whole point of the concept is to protect against forced merging, so I’d imagine you don’t need to worry about that 
I think that is true but James was not specific in his post. I was hoping to get him to clarify or to at least see if other players would also want this.
The more I think about it, the more I think the suggested system would cause more problems than it tries to solve.
For instance, currently you can be thwarted in your expansion plans by someone placing a single plot. With the proposed system, and enough prestige in that single plot, you now have a buffer of at least 3 plots, along the edge of your desired expansion area. This can essentially cut into an area that you may have thought was protected, as the areas can overlap.
I think this note at the end of the original post is worth reiterating…
I’d like more information on what guild functionality there will be, but personally I think if the suggested protection perimeter is implemented, it should not be a standard feature, but one that is only included for guild based plots.
The way I understand it, that statement is in regards to two settlements merging, rather than a beacon being absorbed into a settlement involuntarily, since the protection area would work around beacons, not settlements.
As such, that would also not help in any way in reserving land for expansion of cities and large settlements, either. For that you’d still have to plot in advance.
But some clarification on those points would be nice.
Edit: My second point about it not being used to reserve land for expansion, that’s because the protection area would be around individual beacons according to the original post (and sadly based on those beacons prestige, at least in the original idea).
It wouldn’t take into account the entire settlement’s prestige value to reserve a large chunk of land around cities and such. The beacons on the outskirts are rarely the prestige-heavy ones.
Yup definitely, as a settlement formed of many players is only as strong as it’s weakest link in regards to prestige. If you have a player that has low prestige and thus a small or non-existent protection area, then you can still build close enough to them and absorb the entire settlement that they are a part of.
How large will be the protected area? is it a fixed value or depends it on how big the beacon is or on how much prestige the beacon have?