HELP! Give us your opinion on the balance of beacon compactness?

Agree there is no way everyone will be happy

3 Likes

Here’s my proposal:

Release new planets each with a different ruleset. One for super compact beacons (idk, 0.4), one for medium compact beacons (maybe 0.1), one for low compact beacons (0.02 or so) one or two with max footprints per person (eg max build size per person is 4x4 or 10x10 plots)

See how they go for a month or two.

Then let’s talk.

6 Likes

They had to be Dutch…enough is enough , at some point u have to draw the line and stop changing something that has been changed multiple times.
After this there wil be something else and after something else there will be more. As much as I love the game and the devs for listening to the feedback and trying to please everyone so they can enjoy the game.
It’s also time to stop doing so and set fixed rules ,something that should have been done before release. I wonder why we get all these fixes and changes when this could have been prevented a long time ago. I feel like this is just never going to end and by this I tell you it is killing the game and playerbase. If they were to be dutch…then it was as easy as you don’t like it? Then go! You cant please everyone they also have to accept how it is and let’s take roads as an example have you ever seen a building sandbox game without bridges or roads? No I have not either it’s because it’s part if the game and system. It’s just that some abuse the plotting system by plotting in a zigzag pattern to reserve a certain area this is the main reason it’s not about the roads! Some cry about the roads and that makes it the talk of the day topic but overall like you said theres no way everyone will be happy. This is how I see it, one doesnt like it so Tries to gather more people to join him or her to file an complaint so this issue has to be addressed since hes not alone anymore, the devs not knowing they punish many others in the progress. This also means the players are abusing the kindness of the devs for their own good. The mind is a powerful place and people are very vulnerable to what another person have to say.
So I like share with the community of boundless

Dont listen to anyone that is reading a book for you
But read the book yourself.
This way u get a better understanding of the story.

Because someone can just change the story to its own liking without you even knowing about it.

And accept something even if you dont like it it’s called give and take

5 Likes

I agree strongly with this. Before there is any compactness update, I think it would be smart if we have a giant discussion as a community as to how we can discourage undesirable behavior, encourage desirable behavior, and do it in a way that actually fixes the issues instead of being an incredibly complex bandaid that will ultimately probably not solve the root problem, as it does not address the root cause (prestige). In my opinion we still need to address prestige and annexation and we are just kicking it down the road with this bandaid - we will STILL have to address prestige and annexation in the future. So let’s just do it all now and get it all out of the way, rather than doing little fixes every 6-12 months.

1 Like

Just no. We’ve have that discussion multiple times already, we are even doing it now and we will never agree with a set of rules.
If people want rules then devs should use the feedback they already have and write the rules even if that means some people will leave the game.

11 Likes

There is a consistent narrative that the changes are only being made to address beacon reservation abuse or prestige and annexation. based on several comments James has made

So while some of the abuse of the reservation system is certainly part of the rationale it is not the only rationale for the change. The reason for bringing this up is suggestions are being made to reduce the abuse of the reservation system but not what is being seen by the development team as unnecessary sprawl.

So while I do not think there is anything wrong with a discussion on undesirable behavior, that is not the only issue that the change is trying to address.

Edit: One suggestion I would make for reducing sprawl would be to look at increasing the meshes allowed in a chunk. If you want to get players to build higher then allow for more complex blocks to be used vertically than we can now.

3 Likes

From my understanding one of the biggest concerns from the general playerbase is that certain legitimate builds that are uncompact will be unallowed or even removed.

I think more compactness rating should be awarded for plots that have touching plots from different characters next to them; roads in settlements are, by nature, uncompact, and I believe this would help solve the issue of grid plot roads that are uncompact by allowing them to pass the new system’s rules.

I also think as majorvex said, if players who WERE being compact received a benefit, such as 1.2 times more footfall, as opposed to punishing those who were abusing it, it would go a long way.

4 Likes

Well on the plus side Jiivita’s back!

8 Likes

This is a bad idea because I would just put the compact part on one beacon and the uncompact on another, probably on an alt to further increase ff.

Dosent multi beacon plotting to increase footfall already happen anyway? What would chance?

So I put my roads that merge a far away settlement on an alt, and my compact build on another character. So I still get the benefits of the larger prestige because of the merge using a long road and now I get a bonus for the main build. How am I out anything and how did the system work to reduce sprawl?

1 Like

Perhaps there could be a footfall multiplier tied to beacon compactness, with uncompact beacons recieving a reduction in footfall (one that isnt just a flat 0 footfall), with compact beacons instead getting a bonus as I suggested.

The main addition I was mentioning however was the higher weight to beacons plotted next to other beacons, which can benefit actual settlement roads while punishing the stretched out roads.

So we further reward players using alts as a footfall multiplier already and the players using a single character are left out. I am not sure any solution (or any new or revised mechanic) should reward using alts versus not using alts. The whole point in cool down periods for skill sets was to try and balance alts and skill sets. This definitely gives using alts a bonus. You can boost your own footfall even more with them now. I know some players are using this now, but if asked I would say it is an exploit already.

1 Like

The fact you can gain footfall from multiple alts in a settlement means theres always been an advantage using them. Providing a bonus to compact beacons shouldn’t change the % of how much more coin someone else makes unless your own beacon is uncompact.

In the end my suggestions were only posted in order to try and solve the issue of half the actual settlements in the game being made invalid due to the way they’ve made there roads (not the snaking kind, but the kind that go around buildings within the settlement)

Short of abandoning this system and using a new one to solve snaking, I don’t see how the issue of legitimate (read: not snaking) settlement roads being made invalid can be solved

maybe calculating the prestige density in ‘road’ plots instead of beacon to determine if the plots have a purpose. The snaking beacons that are just there to reserve large chunks of land could be flagged because the areas that are not compact will have no prestige.

So a marble road is good and a wood road is bad because the marble had higher prestige? Or the players that reserve areas just dump blocks to reach enough prestige so that they are not flagged. I think there have been enough instances of prestige dumping in game to show that may not be the best way to discourage reserving land.

1 Like

If I understand what you’re saying correctly, this already exists in the first iteration of the system as presented.

In fact as it turned out the same shapes (a 5x5 with an extension of 2x25+ plots adjacent and a series of 4x45 through 4x99 shaped beacons) was able to be extend further by being split into two touching beacons rather than being a single solid beacon.

1 Like

My idea was each plot in an uncompact area would need a certain amount of prestige to not trigger the system blocking large amounts of reservations. The threshold could easily be set to allow wood or stone blocks that have been placed. The idea being that if you are going to plot like that you have to put some work in to it.

Then what’s the point of this system if there’s already known ways around it?

Just thinking about it some more, I think the way james presented it is okay to me. I feel like this is more of a way to maximize space on planets or servers so more people can fit on each world.

But not entirely sure. Just thinking.

So it sounds like they are okay with roads and all settlements extensions as long as it’s not preventing others from settling.

2 Likes