I don’t believe every shop owner at a hub is like this. Just near me there is someone deliberately selling gems under market value in a prime spot.
I don’t like saying “Buy it” because I understand from my own preferences that it isn’t always compatible with why people play the game. I was making the point that the shop right next to a hub may or may not be more expensive and when I buy I make a decision based on: time I wish to spend, coin available and my understanding of roughly market price.
You use the word “abuse” a lot yet all I see are plenty of shops with varying prices. I think the language choice will just get shop owners backs up and not help your point.
I have a few ideas how this could work, and I apologise if this has already been suggested as their are too many responses to read through atm.
Make it so a beaconed area can only be sold IF it has X amount of prestige, this would prevent people from mass claiming land with the sole intent to sell/ extort people (just make sure refined gleam doesn’t count towards the “selling prestige as its OP”)
Add a craftable “For Sale” sign that costs mid-late game mats, maybe a longish craft time that can’t be bulk/ mass crafted. Once again to prevent mass claiming land with the sole intent to sell/ extort people
Make it so the plot seller has to make a deposit of coin (maybe 50% of the price they are trying to sell for), they will receive this deposit back in full once the plot has been sold, or if they need the coin back they can simply close the sale of the plot and receive their deposit back
I was thinking about this the other day actually, I think there should be a system by which players can transfer beacons to other people for coin ( even if it’s 1c). I think this would make it easier for guilds to manage their land if a guild leader or major land owner decides to leave or grant underlings valuable land for any number of reasons. This would add another layer of gameplay to the land ownership aspect of the game which happens to be one of my favorite things about boundless.
This would mean less land available for free but may mean more land available overall if you have the coin? Lots of room to abuse a system like this but maybe it could work out if implemented in such a way that limits an individual’s ability to negativly another users experience. How that would be done I have no idea.
Ah i guess i got you wrong. What i meant was that players would avoid to build next to other players to avoid taxes and it would also bring disadvantages to solo players. But you are speaking about disadvantages for empty plots/ plots which aren’t a settlements if i’m not wrong?
So that would lead to other problems, like for example if you remove the hill in front of your house, if you place natural blocks which don’t count towards prestige etc… Also what if people intentionally build a settlement with enough prestige next to reserved/speculation plots so that the owner gets taxes and eventually needs to sell them/remove the plots to avoid it?
Also what if people just start building enough prestige on those plots to avoid taxes, for example with gleam.
Great idea however needs to be limited.
2 locations for sale at a time.
*place a sign in the plot showing it for sale or trade. When you click on it a UI will pop up asking u to transfer coin/item to the player to pay for the location.
Pay in full receive the plot. Pay less and wait to see if player excepts your offer.
player should only be able to buy the location if they have enough plots to cover the area. If I just start the game I shouldn’t be able to take over a 1500 plot location because my friend gave it to me for next to nothing “No handouts”
So i really would LOVE to be able to transfer beacons to friends or other persons without having to unplot them. BUT! I really would dislike the happening of speculation with land as such, this could be horrible really quickly. I am totally fine and would embrace speculation and selling Plots that have nice builds on them though.
My suggestion is, to allow the selling of beaconed areas for money in two cases ONLY:
The “purchaser” is friended with you and you can set the beacon that way that he can take ownership over the beacon if he wants to, becoming the new owner.
2) if there is some sort of build on the plots that has to have a certain amount of presitge (like 50000 or so) so that you are not actually selling the plots/the land, but the building on top of it for coin.
I like this idea. But maybe it would work better if the fuel costs remained the same, but duration increased with prestige. Like if a completely empty plot only lasted a week with basic fuel, but as you raise your prestige the fuel time goes up, maybe up to two months? Reward players who build something with more beacon security. The people who are speculating on empty land should have to work at least a little harder to hold onto it than they currently have to.
I had a similar thread about the issue. Some good points were made.
From my perspective, I can say that if a fair system is put in place, people are going to create some pretty cool cities with the intention of selling houses/land to other players to live. I’ve seen this done in other games, and it creates a VERY dynamic economy (something I think Boundless already has but can certainly gain more from).
As for other players greifing/ abusing the system, I doubt it will happen much. Boundless is all about growing and building together, and if somebody blocks off a certain direction, just build over/around them or in another direction.
I cannot see how this added mechanic has anything to do with “cool cities” being built. They were build in early access without it and are being built now without it, so I must be missing something. What I see, is when people build cities instead of someone with very little coin having a chance to get some plots and add something, it will be the people with coin that can afford to buy the good spots.
I think this is naïve. If it is happening now, why should we think a system that formalizes it will make it happen less? I think it is the developers giving people permission to block builds. If I can say I bought the land as an investment is that not a valid tactic? Just like plotting any other resource.
What if somebody wanted to build a city, but only wanted the richest players with the best building skills/resources to be setup in the main area? How could such a player safely sell off certain areas of their city in order to 1) make a profit or 2) create designated areas for safe building while still charging people to build there if need be?
I think adding a system for buying/selling land would ultimately give players more freedom to not only build what they want, but to also sell those things and make money. Building could be a new strong income!
I will partially agree with you there. If such a system were to exist, there has to be something in place to prevent these things from happening (I don’t have the answer to that one!).
“What if somebody wanted to build a city, but only wanted the richest players with the best building skills/resources to be setup in the main area?”
People can do that right now. Selling the land wouldn’t change anything from just giving it away. In fact makes it worse, if you look at the next point.
“How could such a player safely sell off certain areas of their city in order to 1) make a profit or 2) create designated areas for safe building while still charging people to build there if need be?”
First, It’s a profit based on the value of the blocks already on the plot, (So people don’t buy a cheap plot with high value blocks and just sell the blocks to make more money than they bought the plot with). If it has no blocks at all, it’s pure profit that literally cost them nothing but leveling up their character, or spending irl money on Cubits.
Secondly, YOU wouldn’t get to choose who buys the land. It would work like the Shopstand, you set the price and forget, so anyone with the money could come up and buy it. Someone who might not like to build, or just wants to place a shop there, or something that just wants to grief your build by removing all blocks and letting it look ugly and barren.
You’d have no control over the person, any more than if the system wasn’t in place. The biggest difference being that without the system, the person actually has to meet you, talk with you, and you could ask to see their home or other builds created by them first before you sell them the land. With the system, anyone can walk up and buy the land, even if they won’t use it and just want to mess with you and other people using that system to make parts of their cities look ugly.
Safe, only for the seller, not the buyer. It works by the buyer trading requested coins to the selling, and hoping the seller actually deplots the area so you can place down a beacon you would have on hand, and adding the extra plots for the area if it’s bigger than 1 plot.
So we want to create cities for the rich and cities for the poor. I doubt this is what you meant, but that is how this plays out. I also I cannot agree that the most skilled builders have the most money. Since you get no income for a great build just a build in a good location with good prestige (which has nothing to do with skill look at the gleam towers). Some of the more talented builders I know have very little coin as they put all their time and effort into getting materials to build and not into making coin.
I do not think the added game mechanic is needed for this to happen. I have already been involved in two different contract builds for different people. We managed to complete the build and get paid, so why do we need the developers to add something that could be exploited when it can already be done?
Let it be said that I haven’t read the replies here, I’m just launching in, so sorry if someone has said this already
I can envisage a situation where this could be used to bypass the CoC. You aren’t meant to take land near people, and yet people could, as they are simply speculating that this land might be worth something to them.
That is my main issue here. It seems to encourage taking land and demanding coin for it, which would be fine, but I feel like it facilitates griefing, or breaching the CoC