That would combat the problem of ghost towns retaining capital, but it would do nothing to address the problem that inspired the OP, namely that of hostile takeovers by newcomers to a settlement, with the intent of changing the settlement name for whatever reason.
I think a better solution might be that the warden / mayor position be one voted on, rather than tied to prestige, with each beacon being able to put their prestige in form of ‘votes’ towards the mayor position based on each beacon’s prestige value, either to themselves or to someone else.
That way, a hostile take-over that changes the settlement name in a way that the residents disagree with, would have to overtake the entire settlement prestige value (if everyone ‘voted’ their prestige towards the same mayor) instead of just beating the top prestige.
Since the prestige ‘transferred’ via vote would count only towards the warden / mayor position, rather than towards footfall, this would also circumvent any footfall-related problems with changing the prestige value directly.
It’s a nice idea, but the abuse case is pretty obvious: Someone sets down 100 beacons in a 10x10 square and starts pulling in 100k prestige a day. Solve that and you might have something.
Maybe have the default mayor stay as the original even if prestige is over taken and then have a type of voting system for all inhabitants of settlement, with a majority rule needed to change mayor’s? That way the original mayor does not get usurped just because of prestige?
And on top of that have the % reduction per month not logged in?
And on top of that have minimum prestige requirements per beacon of settlement for someone to participate in the vote, so someone cant just make 20 alts and over take someone’s settlement?
It would be basically like letting the person you vote for ‘borrow’ your beacon’s prestige value for the purposes of the warden position and all its benefits, but not for footfall.
So, 10 alts each with a beacon that had, say, 10.000 prestige each, would amount to 100k of prestige going to whoever they voted on (be it one of the alts, or someone else entirely).
I like this idea, and don’t have anything negative to say about it as of yet - the great thing is that if an idea survives the scrutiny of this forum, we’ll know it’s a good one! Say what you want about our community, but there’s no shortage of criticism (useful or not).
This is also a nice idea. Perhaps the negative modifier could slowly return to normal after a certain amount of logins? Just throwing ideas out at the moment.
This is indeed the ideal solution, but the developers have been somewhat opposed to player voting systems on the basis that they can be gamed. It’s not an invalid concern, though I feel the current system can be equally gamed - it’s pretty darn hard to find the perfect system (I actually don’t think there is one), but putting more power in the hands of the community seems like a better alternative that setting up an algorithm that determines a settlement Mayor.
If it was implemented simply as a way of transferring the beacon’s prestige (only for the purposes of the warden position) towards the person you want to vote for, it wouldn’t change the current system all that much, other than allowing the majority of the residents to combine their efforts towards keeping their desired settlement name, instead of each resident having to fight against a prestige-heavy newcomer (and each other) individually.
Could also have it to where the vote can be per toon, so that settlement’s prestige is added to a certain person, in effect enabling multiple mayors in a large town, more like districts. So if someone wants to be a mayor of them self and their alts they can without adversely effecting their neighbors? Likewise the people not wanting in the settlement can opt out?
Well, that’s already a thing, each beacon retains its own name so there’s nothing stopping people from making districts and even streets and such with individual names. It just takes a little bit of work but I think it would be doable (and pretty cool) even within the existing system.
Yeah, but does the name still flash up on the screen when entering? I think it would be neat to be walking around like aquatopia and find dark eel tavern, or PS hug and find bombaporium and more. And have it flash on the screen like a point of interest.
Think it would help shops and points of interest debut too when people happen by
I like and do not like this. To have all the beacons pop up as you go through a city could be very distracting. Maybe as an option to see or an option to turn on?
Well, it doesn’t flash, just shows up on top of the compass. But still, I think naming streets and districts and such is a pretty cool idea even without it flashing on screen.
Maybe they could add some sort of prop or decoration or some sort of beacon upgrade that would make the name of individual beacons flash on screen like settlements, tho I guess that could get pretty annoying if people over-used it…
I think the district Idea is not a bad one. you get some large cities and if you knew you were looking for the “market district” and had a way to know you were there could be good. Or if someone had a workshop in the Hilltop district. . It is all in how the mechanics are implemented.
I wonder if players that want to keep their name would be ok if once they reached a certain size settlement (measured by prestige) they would then be a district that always showed when players came into the old settlement even if they got absorbed?
That would be nice, even if it was a smaller notice, just saying district of such and such warden xxx. Gives credit to builder and advertises their creation. Though I dont want people to be annoyed of course.
I agree something needs to happen but wouldn’t agree with this solution… if we are trying to slow down prestige building we should just be looking to remove it or start questioning the value of it. Also where is the right timing amount? What would be acceptable 1000 a day, 10,000? Ultimately people would find a way to break that system too by using multiple beacons to get 1000 per beacon… etc…
We just need to be obvious about the issue here - are prestige fights ok or not? If they are then let it happen… if they are not then remove the linking of prestige to mayor and bring in another way to be mayor.
It just takes a little bit of work but I think it would be doable (and pretty cool) even within the existing system.