hmm. . What I would do is when you plot one plot in a column you actually plot all of them to make it cleanest. So if you do not have enough plots it would not let you take any plots in a column of plots.
Yeah, I think that could work. It’d probably add a little work to code it to test whether an entire column can be ‘unplotted’, but that make sense as a solution. I guess that logic would also have to apply to putting down a beacon inside and existing plot and converting it to a ‘new’ beacon.
It really is a pity that you can’t share vertical space (even with the same user), though I know there were technical reasons why.
Needed more then ever now?
Here’s a brainstorming idea to put out there. Sorry if its been brought up before and it would need a lot of work before being able to be implemented.
The idea is to have a physical (actually digital) deed item associated with a beacon and its associated plots. You could click on a menu in the beacon and it would give you the deed and freeze all further changes to plotting associated with that beacon so that the deed remains accurate. That deed could be sold, traded etc like any other item in the game and if a new player acquires the deed that player could record their new ownership of the plots controlled by the deed’s beacon by recording the deed at the beacon or some registry of deeds place. This recording would use up the deed.
In conjunction with this it would be great to be able to subdivide plots by adding new beacons and designating the ownership of a subset of plots of a larger plot to a new beacon. That way you could make a large lot of many plots and subdivide and sell off parts of it as you build houses for example.
I actually want to revive this discussion since protection barriers were implemented. Now it seems this system is a necessity. Inner city plot transfers are a pain now. If we have to transfer a road system or similar, it’s either impossible or slower than a herd of turtles stampeding through peanut butter.
Didn’t the protection was changed to default off?
Yeah, but if someone in the city turns it on, you’re either contacting them to flip the switch or playing this tail chasing snake game with the transferee
Well true. Indeed.
You have to confirm with every possible person first.
Not good to unplot part of your build then find out you have 2 hours to try and contact a random player before your stuff goes to regen.
Is there a way to see if the protection is on with the neighboring plots in debug menu or anything?
I believe it’s a different color if it’s on, but there’s no way to tell if their plots have seniority over yours. Only way to find out is to unplot your space, then see if theirs takes it.
If we implement “transfer between ALTs on the same account” then I am ok with that even though I don’t total like it. I am still against selling or transfer between people at this time until we have ways to protect people from holding land hostage or other bad behavior or until we have a better conversation on this area of the game… I get the need but this was still only created because we decided to have buffers versus trying to solve things other ways.
I am all for being able to transfer beacons. I think it would be interesting to see what happens with the contract market for those who build for others at that point. I’m sort of imagining like a housing development, or a mall with purchasable stalls.
This already can happen now. Adding this function doesn’t suddenly open the flood gates of this happening. I already can plot near someones build to give them a hard time or take someones expired build in a city and try to extort money or goods from a player.
Yes people constantly bring this up as an excuse to try to get a feature they want but fail to realize the difference between something just happening and game supported or game enablement of a certain type of behavior. When something is put in that helps enable the behavior we just increase it and give it legitimacy.
All of Ultima eresho was sold to people. I mean same thing no?
I could open a real estate store?
I do not see how this will support Extortion anymore then it doses now. Giving the players the option to transfer plots to another, is little different then someone going into the beacon menu and clicking on delete beacon and letting someone else then re-plot the area. the end result is the same, having this new function only reduces the risks by everybody involved and ensures a player doesn’t miss a plot by mistake.
So I fail to see how this would promote Extortion when it can already be done and the system from my understanding doses nothing to promote it other then making what is typically a benign process a lot faster, If you are trying to refer to the fact it may be possible to add a price tag on to the transfer system, and it is not just the transferal of plots. the I would argue that is even better the what we have now. because then the buyer would know for sure he will get the plots and the risk of that player being scammed falls nearly to zero.
In my experience, Scamming is a much much more common crime then Extortion.
You can not prevent the behavior you seem to be afraid of, it already exists, If extortion happens, it should be reported and let the devs take care of it. Extortion is illegal.
To me the logic of saying we can’t have a function like this due to the fact it might be abused by a few, is more or less along the same lines as the following example.
„People can be toxic, and make death threats to other players using the chat system, or even convince them to commit suicide, Therefore chat needs to be removed from the game because the game now “supports” or “enables” people being sadistic jerks to each other.“
It is silly in the case of removing chat, and it is silly in the case of not allowing a function like this, and because it is human nature to create conflict and drama, we have police and GMs to punish people who get out of line.
The bottom line from me is, It is unrealistic to think you can prevent all bad behaviors from happening, therefore being able to police and punish the behavior is good enough.
I see how you feel the feature should exist and have a set of reasons why. Unfortunately many of those reasons just show the difference between “manually and player interaction” deciding to do this and a set of game features and technology and steps that enable it and promote it. Hence the problem with the decision to bring it on. Basically the option of adding the features communicates to all playing that this type of game play is supported and allowed and expected.
This is no different than what we have been forced to deal with in the game because prestige and footfall and all these other things cause people to see something that needs to be done in the game and then do it. Outside to whether it is true extortion or not the end result is the same.
The example and trying to relate things still has nothing to do with the decision to support and promote an action versus just allowing it. I’m not trying to stop the behavior because we cannot. But we do not have to put more things in the game that promote it and make it easier for people. They can already do it if needed.
Course with something like this in place I would not have a support ticket open for not being able to give my beacon to a friend