I just asked myself how the regeneration would work exactly and if there are differences in the materials when it comes to regeneration.
First, how fast will the regeneration work: Do you prefer it coming fast (like in an hour) or do you think it would come up after a longer while (like a day or longer)?
Second, if not only destryed blocks are coming back but also buildings outside of beacons get to crumble after a while: Do you just want to handle every building the same (every 1-block-tower and other building are consumed at the same speed) or do you think the engine should look if it is a 1-block-stuff and if not, it has a longer duration?
And at last, do you think that different materials for building should have different “resistances” against the regeneration process? For example: If you build a roof or tower of dirt or simple stone it will go away fast, but if you build something with metal bars and blocks it will stay for a while before the regeneration begins.
I just throw this questions out to you. I only know that I would love to see more resistant materials (for building bridges for example), but on the other questions I just want to hear your opinions
I think it should set in after around 2 days of the change being made and then maybe over 6 hours change back to original state, but i really like the idea of letting more valuable blocks disappear slower.
Trees plantlife etc faster then soil rocks resources etc I guess
A tree growing in 1 or 2 days sure why not
If buildings crumble however resistance of materials would be a nice touch like I said wood/organic stuff would go faster then stone etc
And maybe some resistant blocks or something like it (does not need beacon does not decay) could be nice
Making a road or bridge to venture out faster that wont decay or small cabin instead of main base would be nice additions
the regeneration is a decision the devs already made. And it is essencial for an MMO like crafting game cuz the ressources need to regenerate and everybody should feel exploring like finding something new and not finding holes in the ground and towers of monochrome blocks made by players.
It would be nice if your house (e.g. inside your beacon) would not crumble as fast as buildings outside of a beacon.
It’s good to have to do some small house-fixing or to look after your garden, but let’s say after your 2-weeks-holiday on the Seychelles
you come back to a pile of stoneblocks or all of the wood planks you used are mossy etc. I don’t find that very good.
It’s clear that you have to look after your house regularly, and if you are not able to do it for 10 days or so, it’s more work. And as you can not pause a “working environment” or MMOs in general, I would be happy about a satisfying solution.
My boyfriend built a treehouse - it looks cool and is very hidden. I don’t think that would be possible in a very regenerative environment! If you have to chop your way through the tree every one or two days, it makes you feel like Tarzan all the way
As I find the different landscapes and Oort scenery so beautiful, I try to not change much and try to fit in my buildings as good as possible.
I think the stuff you build in a beacon should be free of any regeneration process.
How growing plants will be handled in there is a whole other question ^^ … The idea of a treehouse is cool. may be a fully grown tree will stop being affected in a beacon, so that you can build it without the daily need of a machete ;D
New idea about regeneration has came in my head. What about that: Protectors must doing restoration of worlds manually (unlike Endermans) or magically. For example, Titan can come in and smash out building, which not under beacon’s protection.
And another idea, elder than first, about erosion. World’s parts is being checked for solidity and “weak” blocks like thin ground lines and columns is being destroyed.
well the first thing might happen anyway depending on where you build and where the protectors roam^^
I did think the second is already how part of the regeneration would work.
It would be cool to see different forms of erosion in the world, like acid rain, or even oxidation. Lets say somebody builds a metal bridge across a great chasm, then it would be interesting to see if it will one day fully rust. I like the idea about protectors doing restoration around the world, but I think they should be in control of growing forests, and returning the land to it’s natural form, leaving the buildings to the players to restore. Also, I think the titans wouldn’t quite work because, as of right now, I believe you can only find them in Oort temples, plus a roaming titan would be quite troublesome for new players.
So sometimes people might like to build outside of a beacon right?
things like bridges and the like
well one possibility set it up so that whenever an actual player goes through an area it resets a timer that starts counting down when nobody is there
the world regenerates when the timer is at 0
this way high traffic areas won’t regen nearly as much
this would do several things
it would allow extra beacon builds to stick around so long as people keep it loaded
it would encourage exploration for gathering resources
it would encourage community for maintenance of builds
it would give a temporary permanence to builds so long as you keep using them without making them actually permanent
it would allow people to build outside their beacons without fear that it would instantly vanish
yet abandoned builds would waste away as the world regens
Well, grief around high traffic areas would also last much longer and have higher impact, especially in choke points like bridges and tunnels. I’m afraid that would have a negative net impact.
On the other hand, a cheap temporary beacon that had to be recharged on a semi-regular basis would be excellent for maintaining infrastructure. The more temp-beacons used, the higher the maintenance costs. Additional anti-grief measures could require a player token be used to craft temp beacons, thereby discouraging griefers by making them sign their name to them.
Could also make for EVE type situations where Guilds may lease bases for a period of time, but if they fail to recharge a beacon, other Guilds may invade and claim the property’s riches.
And searching for materials and ores, building monuments, and other typical voxel survival game scenarios don’t sound like work? If a city needs the infrastructure enough but does not want to constantly recharge temp-beacons, then perhaps they could invest in permanent beacons. Otherwise, either don’t build them or hire another player to charge them for you. Sounds like something guilds may handle collectively.
If it was intelligently designed to allow a few days, weeks, or even months to be pre-loaded, it would not be annoying, and would provide sufficient protection for builds that are not worth a permanent beacon, but need to be protected from world regeneration or griefing.
Either way, temp beacons fill these objectives better than region timers:
it would allow extra beacon builds to stick around so long as people keep it loaded
it would encourage community for maintenance of builds
it would give a temporary permanence to builds so long as you keep using them without making them actually permanent
it would allow people to build outside their beacons without fear that it would instantly vanish
yet abandoned builds would waste away as the world regens
Additionally:
Griefers would not be able to destroy these builds, nor would they be able to make their grief permanent by destroying (unbeaconed) high pop areas.
*** Explored regions would regenerate outside of these beacons, allowing minerals to be re-discovered and prevent resource exhaustion.
Griefers would name themselves if they used a temp-beacon. A game moderator could easily identify/ban the offender.
less visited, but no less important builds could be temporarily maintained over a time period, provided the temp-beacon is prepaid in advance.
Come to think of it, I really don’t believe ANY beacon should be truly permanent. It would be better if they needed to be charged or loaded periodically to maintain, so as to prevent abandoned properties existing forever.
no
It doesn’t
the initial building is a creative process
your mini beacons that need fuel would be MAINTENANCE
One is “getting resources to CREATE something”
the other is “getting resources to keep something from being destroyed”
it would be annoying and boring and honestly I wouldn’t bother.
After all I see no difference, fundamentally, between having to do maintenance on a build that is decaying and maintenance on beacons that are running out of fuel
it is just busy work
Maybe you shouldn’t bother with builds outside of beacons then if it’s asking too much to maintain something yourself.
What’s the difference between visiting an area to reset it’s regeneration timer, and visiting an area to recharge it’s beacons? Or perhaps your expecting other people will visit those regions for you instead? That sounds like freeloading… And how would you know if a region is close to regenerating due to a lack of visitors? If simply periodically charging a temp beacon is too much work, then I doubt you’re keeping track of how often you pass through an area.
Also, that maintenance could provide a gold sink for large economies, or a strategic asset to more serious gamers or Guilds that don’t mind a little work to be better than the rest. If a little work is too annoying or boring for you to bother with, then… simply don’t.
The “work is annoying” arguement doesn’t sit well with the manager side in me, I don’t mean to come off as rude. Well, maybe a little…
