HELP! Give us your opinion on transferring and selling beacons!


#141

What about if it wasn’t out-right selling and instead an auction where the starting price is a low static value (say 1000 coin) + 100 coin paid to start the auction and the highest bid is paid to the owner less 10, 15% or 20%.

Once the auction is started it cannot be undone unless the original owner bids on it and wins (in effect paying the 100 coin setup fee and the sale tax).

This way the interested players set the value based on demand for the parcel, rather than the seller. This would also introduce a coin sink with the taxes that would be healthy for the economy.

Additionally when a beacon expires or is released by it’s owner, it could by default enter this auction phase for some time in which case if people do bid on it, it’s a 100% coin sink which is even better! If no one bids on it, the deconstruction happens like it does today. This also helps combat the system of trade sales since the final plot is going to default into auction mode.

No matter what the outcome here, I’d still like the option to release ownership outright to a land owners own alts.


#142

The problem with this is that then people that are trying to reserve land to build are being negatively affected just because they wanted to BUILD.

At this point we are continuing to make more and more things for this game that cause conflict and competition among players. I don’t understand why were are developing anything like this when we have other issues and problems we need solved. We are wasting developer time.

If this “beacon transfer” was for a Guild or community system, then ok. But it should not include private people because they already have options to do this… or focus on “contracts” which help us in a million ways.


#143

Um… Why? They are my plots to place as I see fit, and as long as I’m not griefing anybody with them, I see no problem at all. If you wanted to develop that land and I’d built on it, you wouldn’t be telling me that you might want to develop that land differently to how I want it, and that I should be charged a fee for having a large area.

I appreciate that you want to find a way to make this work, but in essence your telling me ‘You’re not playing the way I think is right, so you should be punished for it’. That’s not cool.

Under your other suggestion, what if other people were to build around my reserve in such a way that it was surrounded by higher prestige plots? You’re saying that if I want to keep what I have, I have to do more and more just because of how other people play? Also not cool.

The way I play is not wrong, it is just different and I shouldn’t be punished for it.


#144

In fairness, they’re only wasting their time if they actually start implementing it. As I understood it, this is just a sounding board for a very vague idea there are ‘considering’ implementing. It’s all good at the moment.


#145

I vote yes… but only once they hit a certain prestige. Selling property, not land. That would stop pay2win, blocking, and simply plotting random spaces in the hope they sell.

Plots around hubs etc are high value, and should be able to be sold if the owner has put in effort to build it up.


#146

Fair it was a bit emotional and generalized. I think if this feature would have been linked to guild or something else it would be more aligned. But, I look at the original message and how it was communicated and see it being focused for a whole new game mechanic. This mechanic helps 1 or 2 people at most… Guild, settlement, beacon management, and community things affect hundreds. So lets focus on the ones that help everyone in each situation, not just the few that might use this especially when they already can do it.


#147

Then they should build. This would reduce or remove tax rates on those plots.

At this moment, nothing is being developed- this is just open conversation exploring new development, and therefore a worthwhile use of time.

No, I’m not saying you’re playing wrong. Don’t make assertions that have no basis. I am simply saying that an upkeep cost both prevents abuse, and may encourage you to look at ways to supplement your income in game, which may even increase your fun had. Don’t assume I’m accusing you of anything nefarious.


#148

I know that I’m biased, because I think this would be a positive feature for the game, but if 67% of 135 voters says they’d like to be able to sell plots, I’d wager you’re massively underselling it.

Of course, I do have to agree that there are things that are more pressing. The things you listed are great examples. But only so many developers can work on a single feature at any time, having multiple ongoing features and plans is usually healthy (unless you fail at version control).


#149

This is a misrepresentation of the numbers, I know myself, and I think at least a couple others, did so but they qualified their “yes” vote below with restrictions.

I’d say the number is much closer to 50/50.

And the game is averagin’ like 800 people a day at any given time I thought, so, if you lost 20% of that, well, the playerbase can’t really stand to lose much more.


#150

Noooooo don’t infect Boundless with the horrors of RL! Estate agents?!

Eco friendly*, spacious** development opportunity*** in Finata’s capital city****. Generous, natural materials***** make the most of beautiful vista views******. Delightful, earthy colours******* make this a deal not to be missed.

*_Mud hut
** 1 plot
*** It doesn’t have a door
**** It was the capital but now Gleam Towers overtook it
***** They haven’t added any materials
****** The two block window looks out on a tree with no trunk
******* Brown


#151

This I like a lot. Minimum prestige before you can sell.


#152

Whether you say it literally or not, or even whether you meant it that way or not, that is the message that your suggestion puts out. Your suggestion clearly divides people who develop their plots from those that don’t, and places playstyle breaking requirements only on one group. I shouldn’t have to go out of my way and do extra work to maintain the same number of plots that another person does because of what I have built in them.

It’s joked about on the forums that gleam towers are ugly, but that it’s still fine and that people should be free to build what they like in their plots. Why does that not apply to people being to build or not build what they want in their plots?

If you still can’t see how what you’re suggesting is entirely unfair, then there’s nothing left to say. You can’t see my point, and I can’t see how you can’t see my point. Where could we actually go from there?


#153

SOLUTION! (maybe)

The idea of selling plots for coin is great, it finally gives builders a solid way to make some hefty coin (brilliant).

What you can do to prevent people from just buying an empty plot, is to make it so you can only sell a plot that is over a certain prestitge. Nothing too big because then you wouldn’t be able to sell cool smaller builds, but not too small as then all you’d have to do with put a few refined gleam in there as a place holder.

Also maybe a prevention to the “buy a plot whack a load of gleam in there”, cap the amount of prestige you can gain for ‘decorative blocks’ such a gleam, so you won’t just have random gleam 8x8s everywhere?

Just a few ideas :slight_smile:


#154

Again… I completely disagree.

if this is the type of mechanics the game is going to employ, then I am OUT.
same with a lot of people that like the look of nature in their builds or surroundings.


#155

I think you can always transfer for free, but you can only ask for coins if the beacon has reach a minimum amount of prestige.
Plot conflicts are already in the game so this new feature will not solve it, but is a great news for builders.

Also, it’d great if we can transfer beacons between alts.


#156

My comment was in answer so Xaldafax saying that it would help 1 or 2 people at most.

I deliberately didn’t work out what 67% of 135 was because I do understand that polls like that come with caveats. My point was simply that even it if was nearer 50/50, 1 or 2 at most and ~68 people are hardly equivalent.


#157

Having huge plots of empty land- which can be potentially sold for coin with in game mechanics is directly P2W unless mechanics are implemented to counter it. It’s my opinion that plotting entirely empty and unused space only inhibits players who want to utilize and play in that space from doing so. If you want unspoiled land from horizon to horizon, there are plenty of frontiers to explore. But when it comes to huge swaths of land in the middle of bustling cities or the practice of plot speculation, you’re actively preventing others from playing in that space. IRL we have property taxes. This idea is simply derived from the IRL solution.


#158

@james
Here are my thoughts,
Regardless if this is a function added to the game or not, it is already happening. People are selling plots in heavy footfall areas. Voting no is not going to stop something like this from happening, it will just make it less convenient to do so. This should be a no brainer, please add the ability to sell or transfer beacons/plots it will also make it easier to transfer plots to your own alts or spots you may have reserved for friends. Please also allow plotting above/below other player’s (make it a function as to where the person who owns the plots have to enable plotting above or below their land, or maybe rent the plots out), this will allow for more cooperative builds in cities and will make it to where players wont be boxed in.


#159

I typed out an answer… and then realised just how futile it was.

It’s like I said, I literally can’t understand how you can think you suggestion in more fair than not, and I don’t feel like I’ve got anything left to say that I haven’t already said to share my point of view. Given that you don’t share or even see my view at this point, you just never will.

Us both finding new ways to say the same thing is pointless when I have actual Boundless to play.


#160

I am not seeking to change your mind, simply seeking to clarify my suggestion. Obviously, it’s not perfect.