this comes back to having a join settlment button or option within the beacon itself…
if you want to join with the encroaching settlement, then you need to be authorized in some way … one, to prove your worth and two, so you can prove? that you are joining because you want to, not because they are a big city/country and you want the ritches that come with it… if you get me (yes share in the spoils ofc… but not like hey im gonna join this shark now so that i can eat as well kinda thing?
if there was the option… then there would be some kind of boarder radius between you and the encroaching settlement (like a block or two space between you) you can do you, they can do they… the 2 block or w/e radius is suseptable to regen… win-win (imo)
and if you decided a month later on, actually you realize joining is a good idea for all involved… then you press the apply to council button on the beacon… and go through… whatever it is you would go through to join them
And this is just my personal opinion, which is probably taboo to most; I think there needs to be a certain amount of policing when it comes to settlements and Mayors. I really want to start my own settlement but I would have an extremely difficult time letting people build whatever they want within my settlement. I think themes are what made Minecraft multiplayer servers so great and I think it’s what could make Boundless great. I’d have some issues with someone building a house out of leaves, tree trunks, and ice blocks in my Desert-themed settlement.
So maybe we need the community to come together and determine some universal etiquette until more intricate systems for dealing with these issues are in place.
in a way this already exists - at least with @the-moebius and a few others… currently there is a garden/nature theme being built at Aqua… others included, fire vs ice (kind of thing) at Eloportas… with Therka Market obviously (apparently) centering aroud some kind of neon nightlife theme… so yes, it does exist
I wonder if a world can be given rulesets that either allow for plots to merge or not. World descriptions could clearly state merge or no merge so a player knows if ultimately if he or she will would ever be at risk of being absorbed. In a sense worlds are defined as PVP or PVE.
this would be a perfect idea! pvp through some kind of… Turf Wars!!! but to extend on the rest?
Is that not what the mythical rumor of private servers are for? - but yes… having a planet/sector dedicated to turf wars in the actual game would actually be awesome!
i thought the idea was to promote play the game YOUR way… not play it MY way? does this not go against the first and promote the latter?
sorry i was just confused in the way you meant it lol… the prestiege i agree with -which is why i am taking both sides on the roads debate… because of the game mechanics… i assume that is the whole reason for the debate… its a Vs between the i want to own this planet! and but i don’t want you to own my build! confusions and etc
But now i understand what you mean, thx
Addition - i was thinking of a very good fix for this debate (which i beleive was/is actually the entire idea behind being Mayor)…
Was it not written a while ago (cant remember exact wording) … don’t worry … we will eventually bring in Votes for mayors and etc… they may be monthly or etc… this would solve the issue right here…
Ok so one person/group has enough prestige to become mayor… they automatically become the first mayor… a monrth or two later… there is a vote (hosted by the game mechanics itself) which covers every active player… - or those with certain prestiege - whether in the original group or not, i cant remember… but once voting is done… Jack either gets voted to stay for another term, or gets voted out and replaced by John etc
I don’t think Stretchious’ idea prevents people from playing their way—you’re welcome to build roads, have stretched out builds, etc; they just wouldn’t be covered by a single settlement
This is the only issue I have with this. I think each classification of settlement should have a different player requirement. Outposts and Hamlets only require 1 player, but then any above that would require an increasing amount of players (maybe swap Hamlet with Outpost and make Outpost require 2?).
A change like that would support using taxes to acquire new plots. If you’re going to be buying up more and more land, you better have the population to support it.
EVE Online has some interesting ways to manage corporations with roles, etc. It makes for fascinating reading, especially when espionage is involved… but that aside, it might be worth considering some of that approach for Boundless political (ie mayoral) structuring.
Like the AOI idea - reminds me of how cities grow in the latest Civ.
I like the taxes idea too.
Gets me thinking about whether settlements --> cities --> ultimately nation-states. Even if it doesn’t evolve that far, different types of political systems to choose from for governance (monarchy, tyranny, democracy) would certainly make for some interesting ideological variations…
Government types for settlements? Interesting idea. Right now they are essentialy authoritarian. Not that the dictator can do more than change the name. Monarchy might be when other settlements partly join but remain somewhat separate. Democracy could generate more money? Elect the mayor? Maybe the mayor could assign different purposes for areas of the town?
You make a good point - even with development, game mechanics probably couldn’t evolve to mirror real-life governance types to enough of an extent.
But the ability for a mayor to choose from a set of buffs depending on how large that settlement is might be interesting. So, one settlement might have a mining buff, another a crafting buff, another a combat buff - the settlements themselves offer something in return for tax, then, and there’s a way to differentiate by identity.
It doesn’t mean that you would only ever get traders all in one place (although think about how early cities evolved, with ‘quarters’ pertaining to somewhat similar specialties) - there would be an interesting challenge to be a trader and open a store in a combat settlement, focusing on providing weapons. Think of the franchise potential!!
Thinking more about tax, maybe there are two accounts - one is the mayor’s personal fund, earned through a portion of tax maybe. But the rest is then split into a municipal fund that can only be used to ‘buy’ buffs, extend AOI, maybe even road mapping and zoning?
Not to want to get too far into the SimCity analogue, but it’d be great to find a balance between what a mayor/founder of a settlement envisages for that location, and then being able to influence how it grows. Maybe even restrict block types for buildings therein - something which may well not be widely popular, but might please some of those among us who like to request certain styles from those settling within their city limits.
damn you, you had to mention THAT game didn’t you!
Lol… yes i would LOVE (no sarcasm intended) the EVE idea of some kind of corporation etc… this would solve so many issues!
@Angellus - i love your idea as well of having a maximum plots per added player as an example of… a solo player can only create 50 plots… 2 can do 75/100 4 can do 150/200 etc etc with tax increasing with the size of the settlement!
They should add a way to change a settlements’ (and upwards) owner, where whoever currently owns it can click a button in the “Settlement” part of the Beacon.
Also fixing plots, a few plots near me say they’re unowned when I hold the plotting tool, but they’re owned whenever someone else tries to place something (since it won’t let them)
And whenever I try to remove plots it says I must remove all beacons, but if I try to remove a beacon I have to remove all plots.
