Settlement Revamp - Opt-in Versus Forced


Actually, you’re wrong there. It’s LA.

Edited to say… you do t say you’re from Culver City… Culver City is a poop hole. Better to say LA.



Lol exactly my point! The fact that you are an independent entity is wonderful but you are still swallowed by the larger town even if you keep your own mayor and your own police force and your own everything you’re still part part of the bigger town. Many local citizens would not differentiate between Culver City and the rest of Los Angeles because it’s really a mute point.


Rachel your picture illustrates the 16 block buffer zone exactly. At the end of the day that house might be quote-unquote independent but if you walk an inch past that 16 block perimeter of the buffer zone you are in that City. You can try to tunnel you can try to fly or you can simply walk but guess what you’re still going to be in that City when you leave that buffer zone. This is what a lot of people in the larger cities such as Duskmoor or any of the other great large cities have been faced with. Sometimes it’s malicious and that is an entirely different story needs to be dealt with. However many times and most times it is simply the fact that the city grew at an exponentially great rate like the Roman Empire did back in the day and the smaller Community was essentially enveloped by the larger with no malicious intent intended.

I still stand by my original thought that with a buffer zone or without the buffer zone the best solution is to allow communities to retain their identity maybe using the words District of or borough of after their name. This allows the original Community or settlement to retain their personal identity while at the same time acknowledging the fact that they are part of a larger ever-expanding community. Some people take this as an attack on them but I say that usually it is simply part of the world becoming populated. When the developers are prepared to advertise this game and to push for the large masses of people that will probably one day come and play here this is only going to become a more common thing. So why not come up with a happy medium like this that will solve a lot of these problems. A buffer zone of 16 blocks will help with some of the problems but for the most part the larger issue will always continue to exist. The idea that I believe was envisioned by the developers was that we would form large communities eventually. You can fight it and stay independent like the house in Ratchel’s picture which is perfectly fine or you can connect your driveway to the street in front of that house I’m be part of the bigger Community but retain your identity.


So pick another city - Santa Monica, Pacific Palisades… ones I’ve lived in and ones that certainly do not identify with being “los angeles” In fact they do stuff to separate themselves… They have no “district” in their name or anything to link themselves to Los Angeles. So the points that one city being swallowed by another city is a reason to keep this bad Boundless “settlement” design is pretty weak.

It is probably best to stop trying to use those examples because we have situations on both sides. In the end it still doesn’t address why “player choice” to select where their prestige goes is a bad idea over forced annexation.


If you get more prestige than the top person you take over the larger city. The Guild update just gave people a way to group things… So really it is the largest “settlement” that runs the whole thing in terms of name, etc.


If a player wants to select where their prestige goes then the Guild alignment is there for them… with the new buffer system forced annexation is not possible and a separation of 2 plots will be a mere 16 blocks between them.

BUT my point is that those tiny communities will be over time outgrown by the larger ones and in the end via urban sprawl will be surrounded in one way or another. This is the elephant in the room that you are not addressing.


Yes, that is correct


This does not solve the prestige ultimately being linked and used by a bigger city that was not approved. So this “feature” does not solve anything in regards to the original post.

Until we see how they will handle existing settlements with the buffer system I don’t agree that it solves anything. It does not exist yet. Even if it did it doesn’t solve the “existing problems” we have now.

The issue is not about being surrounded since that was never anything I brought up in my original post. I thought I have been pretty clear on that, but I guess not clear enough since you still have questions about.

The issue is choice on where your current and future prestige and city names are linked to and the ability to “choose.” Hopefully that clears it up.


If your settlement is surrounded by another with the buffer system you will keep your prestige to yourself. You can give your prestige to a Guild. You will NOT be giving it to another city independent of a guild. Not even something being considered. Move on!
As far as current existing settlements NOTHING will happen. This change only effects GOING FORWARD! So if you are linked now you will still be LINKED physically… you will however have the option to NOT be connected prestige wise…but you will be linked physically


I support the idea of something additional to allow the opt-in system. The buffer will not help any existing plots only new builds.

Also works both ways, my plots don’t physically touch another’s on the same plane. But this creates a bigger settlement with duplicate name with higher prestige than my actual settlement. I would prefer if I could opt out of absorbing this beacon as it will always show two settlements with the same name but one with slightly higher prestige than my actual settlement.


I understand how the buffer system works with things outside of existing settlements. I read the post James did and saw all the details. Since the buffer system is not really irrelevant to this post can we please stop talking about it, please.

In general for the thread - After all the discussion to date my request for the feature still stands in my original views. Thanks to those that supported the idea.


At the end of the day… your idea is irrelevant if a city such as Duskmoor surrounds you over time… you can either connect to them, not connect to them, or align to a guild.

How do you hope to address that?


I have no need to address Duskmoor or Axon or any other city surrounding me. Why are you trying to link that to the suggestion I am proposing? Surrounding of a person’s build is a completely different problem and not something I am trying to address.

But you hit on the one thing that is missing in your point above - any connection that happens still causes the Duskmoore name to be added into my settlement listing and my prestige is not joined to their larger settlement listing. So that control of the “name” and “prestige” components is what I am targeting with the feature.

By providing the option in my feature request the “surrounding” issue becomes a moot point because I still control the land I did reserve and more importantly all prestige and settlement names I have. Duskmoore doesn’t get any benefit from surrounding me or linking to me unless I choose to connect to their settlement. So my identity stays the same in all cases. Much cleaner situation…


So your suggestion is only concerning you and your personal situation…Fine and good for you… this is a huge game with a lot of players…my questions for you were concerning the OTHER 99.9% of all of us… now I understand that this is all about You and Your situation… 100% cool and I apologize for missing this earlier.


Ill join into this conversation fun. As players continue to build and build near other players there settlements combine, and one with the most Prestige Names the Settlement. Naming of the settlement changes when you align to guild. Then your names is of whatever you choose, if you control the guild for doing so. still will say on beacon details located in the larger settlements, as I have in AXON myself. If you are connected to groups, like AXON and iconicberg, both on biltula, you will cause iconicberg to fall under AXON. A player can potentially cut of alignment by having none connected plots in between like having the border up in the air and max height by an alt. and causing the ground plots to stay reserved. Or just create a guild with alt join guild with plot holders and align your plot to your guild. player is better off by being in a great city anyways for better footfall.

If a player not wants AXON’s great city footfall benefits then offset connected plot heights that you control.


So, here is the problem I continuously see with your opt-in system that seems to go ignored. Yeah, you keep your name (which you can already do with the guild system), but you can also break up a city you are a major part of any time you want for any reason. Own a central road system and get upset the mayor didn’t wave when they ran by? Just opt-out and everyone inside your road system are no longer attached to the city. I see a lot of personal issues blowing up this forum because peoples feelings get hurt when someone rips apart a city when they get unhappy with someone.

Your system may fix the personal problem with “others getting your prestige” but it doesn’t fix the people issues driving it. The goal behind most of these systems seems to be to help minimize conflict for the developer, not add a system that causes more in a way that can’t be policed. I think there are better ways for us to modify existing systems that will better suit the games needs, such as changing the way guild names pop up when you enter a section of a city.


I am pretty sure the game looks at connections from a top down perspective so just having plots at a different altitude does not create a separation.


It does, part of our exodus build is connected in this way.

Edit: Or at least has been. I think I’ve evened everything out now.


might be a result of a glitch situation then for me. with alts and not having a 3wide and it counting as a road part for an alt type thing. :wink: