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?
There is a lot of speculation going on here about the values and how they could be destructive. That is good, we can frame that as feedback so that the actually system will not reflect those fears (vs suggesting doing nothing).
If a person acquired 1 plot buffer around their build at 10k prestige and 2 plots at 1 million prestige then the game would hardly be broken.
A two plot buffer would not ‘envelope’ anyone up except a 1 plot build (that had less then 10k prestige).
However, in the current system a 1 plot build, with any amount of prestige could already be easily gobbled up by someone using plots…and that action falls into the CoC.
I think a small buffer around a build based on prestige would be a welcome addition to the game.
Some things to remember:
- Attaching it to prestige means that if someone goes in and grabs a 1 plot that they don’t intend to build up…it doesn’t have a buffer.
- Attaching it to prestige means that if you plot a huge area for a future city but don’t build anything, it doesn’t get a buffer.
There will always be ways to game a system. There will always be ways to get around something or abuse it. The CoC is there to help in those situations.
The question here is about if a small buffer around your build would be a welcome addition to the game for you. For me, yes it would be very welcomed.
I shared that people should vote against this and understand the problem still exists but now has buffers added to it. There is no forcing in that… at most it is a recommendation to not add an additional component to the game that will enhance the conflict.
The feature, on it’s own, is indeed not perfect. However, it can be built and changed to better suit a balance that does work.
(For example, only allow another player’s Protection to only go to the edge of a build, then no farther in that direction. So in the end, they can only seal off 1 side of a player, and not 3 or even cover and completely seal off someone. Just an idea.)
Cause right now, even if they removed Prestige completely from the game, people would still be making gleam towers, and surrounding people, and harrassing cities.
At least with this system in place, if they removed the Prestige system completely, those that don’t want to be near people can be isolated, and those that want to be near people can turn it off and then they can be with other people.
This is my first post here, because this is important to me:
Please don’t give more protection to people who have lots of prestige. The effects of prestige are bad enough as they are.
So far I protect my small house by placing plots in the sky around it. I don’t understand why you would need a protection mechanic with a layer that is bigger than 1.
X=Protected, p=empty beacon plots, H=Home (used beacon plots)
That’s 18 plots placed and 36 protected.
Now imagine a gleam tower with a layer of 3. That person could “protect” more than 600 plots by placing 100. This could lead to even more griefing instead of preventing it.
If a protection mechanic is really necessary, I propose to make it 1 layer thick and start at 10k prestige. Because that is a value even new players can achieve and already in use for settlements.
That’s what this thread is about. Giving your opinion on the idea. It’s only the basic skeleton, not the complete full version of the feature. Things can change, things can be rebalanced.
I agree that Prestige shouldn’t be tied to the protection, but 1 layer around won’t change anything, then the person can just plot next to you and it cuts off the protected area so you can’t plot it later.
Whats more, it doesn’t stop the people that do plop down 600 plots. In fact, it makes it easier for them to deny people, because they just have to plot every 2 gaps.
X=Protected, p=empty beacon plots, H=Home (used beacon plots)
I think if the buffer was set to like 1-3 plots then I would probably be ok with it. Overall I think it is the prestige link and ability for the buffer to grow that is the biggest issue in my eyes. It gives people a much easier ability to put themselves into areas and affect people on a much larger spacing than now.
I think one plot buffer starting at 10k prestige and then scale up to a max of 3.
3 plots will prevent even the nearest beaconed plot to not merge settlements.
You would both be right, if not for 1 part of the feature that negates it. No matter how big or small you make the Buffer, someone more bigger can come by, plot next to you, and prevent you from expanding. Because the plots that both yours and his protection cover, can’t be used by either of you. Preventing him from expanding that way, but you as well. And if he’s a bully and griefer, he doesn’t care about expanding that way, only cares that YOU can’t expand that way either.
To me, protection shouldn’t be overlapping, it really should be first come first serve. Cause then, even if someone shores up right next to you before the buffer expands in 1 direction, it will still expand in other directions, AND you can STILL use the land right next to him that you protected first.
After all, what is the point of having a buffer to protect future plotted lands to expand, if you can’t actually plot there and expand!
That is overall why I am against the idea because you’re still stuck…
The only solution still remains either to plot what you want ahead of time or build game mechanics that just make it not worth while to be beside people.
But instead of just denying the feature as a whole, you can just point out that overlapping the protection doesn’t solve the problems. Instead having the protections work as a ‘First come first serve’ system would solve that issue and the original problem.
While this seems like a good idea it will likely cause more issues for larger settlements where you will potentially have several overlapping protected zones. It will only take one person with a reasonable prestige build to accidentally or intentionally hold a city to ransom by not disabling the setting. Add to this players with long or renewing gleam club memberships that are not actively playing now who’s city builds would lock out city sections without them even being aware or contactable in any way by other players.
But there are 2 ways around this, depending on how they go about it.
The first, and weaker way, is that to be in a apart of a settlement, the Protection gets turned off permanantly if 2-4 people are connected together in a settlement. So no one in the city gets protection on, but the city itself is also left without protection, thus not solving anything.
The other option, is having Protection be combined now, and controlled by the Warden of the town. But to prevent people from going afk as the warden, or holding the city hostage, have a secondary way for people to plot next to and join the city. Such as having the people inside of a settlement, able to invite, or some other form of letting someone outside join the city, and thus he can plot in the city’s protected zone.
I’m liking the first come first served idea with this kind of plot mechanic, thats always where the problem lies.
Its usually the 2nd person that comes in that causes problems…
Player A has a protection of 1 plot.
Player B beacons a few plots over and quickly expands to a buffer of 3 which would overlap player A’s buffer.
Player A’s buffer should still belong to him and should be able to expand into their buffer but no closer to player B.
This was player B’s choice to plot that close to player A and should accept that player A can still use his one plot buffer.
The other potential issue is where player A accidentally restricts/engulfs player B’s build with a protection zone just because he has built a high prestige beacon. Player A dosen’t want to turn off the protection or permit B as he dosen’t trust player B but player B suddenly cant expand due to the expanded protection zone.