Settlement Revamp - Opt-in Versus Forced


#101

For now, Trove is gathering dust because


#102

Ok so if we are willing to discuss more radical changes. why do players tend to force merge? They want the prestige or they are trolling are probably high on the list. If you eliminate prestige then one reason to force merge is gone. Then players build either for utility or beauty.


#103

Some times (also my current situation) it’s to do with a small build/player wanting to boost their own footfall.

I believe you could find many places in game where two or more medium/large builds have been merged without either/any of those builders actually wanting to be merged.

Hmmmm I know a couple of my posts sound bitter on this issue lately, but I knew what was going to happen and TBH I gave the guy some tools and mats to help him get back into the game and also specifically to build the road in the style that he wanted.

For me this is a current game mechanic and I understand at least some of what drives the players. If he would stay active I’d be happy as I would rather have active players around than sovereignty. As with most things, it’s an ongoing compromise.


#104

Maybe we should move anyone up into a settlement status requires opt in to join a settlement, and any settlements that get connected get asked if they want to join an empire or something.


#105

Ok that is because footfall is linked to prestige versus just having a player visit. If prestige is gone then footfall maybe is based solely on visitors and is the same for every build big or small.


#106

I’m not trying be derisive or anything of that nature. This is just how I see this problem. It’s why I just dont try to build near anyone else. This system is going to constantly have band-aids applied. We’ve already seen this in the past, more will just prove the pattern as time goes on because that’s human nature, admittedly or not.

I’ve got a few ideas that I think would work but I don’t bother to post it because I know a chunk of the player base would be wildly upset, and understandably so as the game they have grown to love would have a radical change thrown at them and people just have a hard time dealing with change…

That’s why I’ll just continue playing uncaring of what avenue the change goes because at the end of the day, I only venture out to other builds to explore and be a tourist so what’s there this week and fun to look at might not be there next week. That’s just the nature of the beacon system we have now and to date it continues to be a problem that other players will work aggressively to benefit themselves… which means there will be constant band-aids because people will always find a way to game this current system.

That said: Honestly I think a unique and revenue generating way to address this is have a store/cubit plot designed so that a player can drop down a massive plot(s) that allows others to place their plots in side it for a fee, which is paid to the main plot owner (mall owner if you will for example, just like a lease) and maybe a portion of it to taxes if the devs ever felt like the game needed a sink)). This would help a lot of problems in city builds and mall builds. This would give the owner total control of who can build in the area as there would need to be a permission to be accepted in to building. It’s also a ghetto way of dealing with private worlds until those are actually released (if ever). If people can not do certain things with their beacons. This would also help, I think at least, centralize shops as people would flock to a shop system that has stability in shops coming/going/activity/etc, But at the same time this idea might be completely against the Boundless a lot of people play. I feel like it helps fix a beacon issue as far as stores/cities/malls are concerned and a central shopping concern many have by not knowing where to find things for sale. Perhaps the big plots could have a compass marker so you see when you visit a planet.

I know, pretty out there stuff, but I just don’t see a way that the current system ‘stays’ fixed.


How would you feel about a setting for Settlements that determines buffers?
#107

Right so a person with 20 or 40k prestige has a vested interest in linking stuff up until they can personally hit city (or even town) levels by merging one or more disconnected builds together. OFC ideally users will travel between these places on their roads as well, allowing them to be branded as “useful”.

Not sure how much of this is incidental or was considered at design time but the end result is a very specific incentive for people to go around linking up other people’s builds, even if the end result is that they push someone else into a titled position (warden, viceroy, etc…).


#108

I have never understood how a road is useful since it does not make travel faster or stop mobs from attacking. Now maybe a bridge or tunnel is useful as swimming is slow and going over a mountain can take time. The hud let’s me know where a settlement is and which direction portals are, so really not sure that a road helps any of this.


#109

I think it is important to explore new concepts even if players do not all like them. My only concern with your proposal is how much control does the mall owner get? As long as you pay, can they kick you out early or at the end of your lease? A player can have invested a lot of time and effort into a store. Under the current system they cannot be forcibly moved in favor of a mall owners friends or so the mall owner wanting to sell similar items can eliminate the competition. I always worry when we give players power over other players. It always seems to encourage bad behavior on the part of some players.


#110

Players should not be able to take things away from other players.
Be it a settlement name, a plot, etc.

I think Boundless’s opinion differs on this, though.


#111

I do understand some of the issues raised on the opt in opt out as far as a player deciding to opt out after opting in just because they are upset. I do wonder is this all not a two player system anyway? If someone touches your build do both players or the mayor of both settlements have agree on the merge? I would think they would. So would opt out not work the same way, the beacon owner and the mayor would have to agree. If the mayor is the one trying to opt out then the player with the most plots touching the mayor also has to agree. Maybe that will eliminate enough of the opting out for the wrong reasons.


#112

Pretty funny attempt and example of trying to diverge the conversation away from the issue… even though I made not one claim that it was only my issue and you know that. So please stop harassing me and trying to create situations where you can say I said something that I didn’t.

The issue I face is the same one every other person faces with the settlement design hence why I created the suggestion. People can continue to try to find original ways or whatever to make excuses on why the current design is fine or how this one feature or something else makes it irrelevant… but all will fail because of the key component of the suggestion - choice.

A player should not have to removed their reserved land to break apart from a city. Ultimately even if they did it will not solve the problem if someone comes in and fills in the reserved land. Hence why a choice option to pick the settlement you want to join is needed. Or the one to make it so your beacon will not join anything.

You don’t keep your city name or the top settlement name… whatever you want to call it.

Solutions:

A) Plot around the road and add your beacon to that settlement via Opt-In. Problem solved.
B) Add a feature where for a certain amount of chunks “settlements” names can pass through. So even if a “road” opts-out of the settlement people on the other side can still select it. Problem solved.

The one key thing with your example, though, is now you are willing to allow one form of conflict (which we currently have and many people have complained about for years) be supported, yet try to use different form of conflict as why you cannot have a feature. So do we need to rate which form of conflict is less important versus just solving the issues as they come up?

It is a design issue much more than a personal problem and goes into people taking advantage of people’s work and a variety of issues that we have seen come up even to the point of some people leaving. So even if we want to “define it as a personal problem that everyone has” that we should probably rate it a pretty important one.

How the name pops up only solves it if there is no city name added and the settlement being added to the cities list of settlements. So how does this solve a person being force joined into a settlement they didn’t agree to join?

Incorrect. I showed how they were no relevant. I never “dismissed them” and the connotation you and him are trying to make it sound like. If people are worried about being surrounded by a city then they should find a solution and post it in the “city surrounding” thread and not try to change the context of this thread.


#113

Thank you for reminding us of that thread… yeah I think it was a feature we have needed for a long time. It probably would have helped a lot to have it before release…


#114

Xaldafax has once again deflected and avoided discussing what he considers “not relevant” … I feel like we are talking to one of those customer service Reps reading off a script saying alot but dismissing alot the customer has to say.

I still believe that this entire situation could be a headache for the towns with neighbors, malls, and similar setups going forward…Hope I am wrong… Secondly, these solutions will never solve all the issues with urban Sprawl overtaking and surrounding smaller communities… Will the opt in/out help? Hopefully! Will the buffer help? Hopefully!

My solution? I have no Magic FixAll… but I do believe the ability to Blueprint your stuff and having an option to packup and move is one major solution to alot of these major brushups between folks…add in the ability to divide up a beacon and transfer it to another character is also something to consider.

One last tidbit:I find it interesting though that a couple of you have assumed I am against the opt in and the buffer… It may surprise you to know that in fact I am quite Happy about it… my concerns raised here were not for MY interests, but rather for the entire community’s …


#115

I think people would like to be able to do this :+1:


#116

Hopefully you come back through and reread some of this stuff at a later date and see how difficult you can be to talk to. Its not worth going back and forth with you when the devs can read the post they can make their own decisions with since the information is already there. The back and forth is just a sideshow.


#117

I do think there are at least a few valid points in your post that should not get lost. As the universe ages, the existing planets are going to get more crowded. Heck less than a dozen of us already has almost 10% of the surface of a planet plotted and built on and we still have thousands of spare plots. Settlements running into each other is going to happen more and more. With gleam club and constant leveling players do not have to remove old builds and they aren’t.

I also agree that hopefully the buffers will help curtail some issues but I am not convinced they will solve all of them.


#118

What is easier for dev’s to manage?

Constant complaints of people forcibly merging or accidentally merging?

Or…

Infrequent situations when a player troll plots around another player to halt growth which provides devs with an easy to moderate situation?

Stop making perfect the enemy of good.

Opt in and out settlement identity would massively reduce the workload of devs.


#119

This is one way this could be handled (just depends how much control people feel should be given or taken)
They get permission to accept and that is it. Control ends once a fee begins being paid for x amount of time (lets think like gleam club and beacon protection)). To renew the contract after a time period, both parties would have to agree for the renewal (ie: the owner of the mall/city was happy with the aesthetic of the shop owner who agree to certain conditions for examample)

Early no; end yes but with plenty of warning on both sides, likewise a rentee could choose to not renew the contract and the mall/city owner would have to find someone to build that spot and maintain it.

Is it open to some abuse in this loose description? yes but I guess that’s where the trust of the community comes in and people learn who to and not to do business with. Reputation seems to matter in this game for some people so I would think the ‘stupidness’ if you will of potential mall/city owners would be minimal

I agree, which is why there has to be a level of trust and a level of profit for the city/mall owner to not want to have that sort of uncertainty with regard to shops flipping. The goal in this regard is to make sure shops are centralized making it easier for people to shop for items. Shops dying off or not stocking items routinely is a big problem and that would let mall owners have a way of getting rid of tenants that take up space and dont contribute otherwise.


Boundless is a game but the majority of people running shops treat it like a min/max profit second job. If that is how people want to play the game then it makes some sense to adopt similar real world ways of helping facilitate that going forward.

This is just a really loose idea with minimal framework. There’s a lot that could be fleshed out I think but that’s a totally different discussion I think from what is being had currently.


#120

The one thing about this is it puts all the responsibility on the part of the player running and paying for the store and nothing on the part of the mall owner (who currently gets footfall and now also gets rent). The mall owner could move the portals or expand and make where a store owner has their shop less desirable and they have no way to do anything about it but are still expected to pay for their space. I think the trust has to work both ways and I am not sure that is not what happens now. If you run a mall then you have to trust the person to run a shop and if you run a shop you have to trust the mall owner to keep the portals running and not to possibly expand so much that you face constantly increasing competition.

Another concern is have we just added to the disputes that will have to be handled by the developers? When a shop owner does not want to renew for whatever reason do we end up with a shop owner complaining to the developers that they are not being treated fairly? After all (as you stated) they may have invested a great deal of time in running their store and at the end of a lease to have the mall owner say you are not running it the way I want you too so I am not renewing, I think will create more issues than we have now.

I do not have an issue with malls. But as they are not a mechanic specifically put in place by the developers, should it not be up to the players to make them work within the existing framework, rather than requiring a programming effort?

My largest concern is that we seem to be constantly introducing more complicated mechanics into the game all the time. Maybe simple is best. I know James has said he wants to find ways to simplify the game and remove the fat. Is there a way to make a relationship like this work without introducing a more complex system?