I thought the Centraforge is the end game. But the forge is just a little game, the real challenge is understanding plotting.
Iâve never heard of Queens be called Queens of New York City. Its just Queens, The Bronx, Manhattan so on.
I pasted that image and it shows how unique each of those are. It would be nice to have that individuality within a larger group of Oortians.
Opt-in would make this individuality stand out. Currently you have two options if you want individuality:
-
Youâre forced to quit the game at which time the larger city with more prestige will scavenge for your plots and demonize anyone new who takes them
-
You âMove to one of the other 50 planetsâ leaving behind possibly some of the plots you began the game in.
Edit: I mean if you want to keep your individuality after a larger prestige city consumes you.
Thanks for the pictures⌠it helped clarify a few things. For me I look at towns in larger cities that have their own water/power, etc services. They are truly separate and a perfect example of why opt-in is a better design for settlements.
And the sad thing with this option is the process might be repeated again because someone moves in beside you. We have seen in the forums plenty of horror stories and complaints on this.
Obviously if buffers do hit into production then you will have the buffer unless someone goes in between you and you all allow them permissions to build. That could cause settlements to merge and then you have no want to undo those actions. That is a fatal flaw in the buffer system.
1 Like
Yea I guess I didnât see it as being more complex. The âbigâ plot owners would want stability so the scenario youâre talking about is a worst case scenario focused on the abuse. Thatâs bad business for people who are treating this game like a second job so I donât see those scenarios being common. And this isnât just limited to shops/malls it pertains to cities too. It gives city founders a bigger tool to use in making sure people are building how the city/town founders want. If people donât want to build that way then they arenât going to go to those places to sign a lease to build anyways.
I definitely see this idea used differently than the way you are looking at it. Even in the worst cases of your example, others who do business with the âbigâ plot owner would know what could possibly happen and would move else where because what happens when they donât measure up in the way that first guy who didnât have his lease renewed did.
The entire crux of the this particular idea I had was giving city / mall owners more control over how their ideas are built out/upon. The entire purpose of it is to weed people out who donât want to conform to the âbigâ plot owners idea/designs.
edited for not all malls/cities would need to use these bigger plots by any means, it just gives those who want more control over the process to have it. Those are the types of people who seem to file the complaints already anyways. Maybe thatâs just perception though.
This sounds like you all need to take these ideas to a new thread to discuss. It doesnât really seem relevant to an opt-in beacon any longer because of the design. I would suggest a new suggestion thread on the topic because it seems interesting.
I think it is very possible that it is factual and not just perception. But in the end it is an MMO and if you decide to build something where you want other players to participate in one way or another, you are at times going to be disappointed. You options are always to remove your self from the situation or to ignore the actions of the other player. I do not think the developers should ever be involved in a conflict where someone feels a player did not build the way they wanted or keep a store stocked the way they wanted. If you want it done in a particular way then maybe you should do it yourself. No one is being forced to run a mall or start a settlement. It is a choice and with that choice comes some good (when dealing with players that have the same vision or are willing to at least participate constructively) and some bad (when a player does not build to fit the theme or does not run the store the way you wanted or would yourself).
I guess in the end, I am not sure that any player should have that much control over another player. Even making the assumption that there are more good than bad players, it still seems like it might just be creating more of a headache for the developers than they already have.
Im not going to start a new thread on it because I just feel like suggestions never really go anywhere anyways. and as far as developers being involved in things - they just put in to the game a way for them to easily handle beacon changes in game doing way more control than the bit about the bigger plot holder idea. If anything they have increased the amount of reviews they have now that the population knows they have a way to deal with beacon disputes in a swift manner.
Iâm just going to keep playing the game and be quiet. The issues will just remain because all we ever get are band-aids⌠Real change means radical decisions.
Good News Everyone, new update is a solution to this oped in issue. Just have to drop some land now that connects yours. careful on the dropping land part in case other claim holder near the land drop gets the reserved claim. perhaps test out with 2 claim holders in a new area to see how removing a claim is handled. I would like to guess that removing a plot and still having plots near would result in that person getting the reserve rights and not the beacon that was there longest kind of thing. Good luck to everyone figuring out neutral zone barriers
The oldest claim has priority
I can appreciate the attempt but as expected the answer is still, âNo buffers do not solve anythingâ in the existing settlement or anything where plots start to touch. The original post idea still stands as the answer.
If that is the case would me droping a row of claims inside my claim area so I gain the reserve at that time then drop claims where i want to break off from another players claimed land work? or if the other player then claims up to my reserved area do they then get reserved rights on what i had there ? or is this based of plot claim time and not beacon claim time?
It is based on the beacon, so you should be fine
Edit: nope actually iâm st00p
If you drop plots and a nearby beacon has itâs buffer on & was there 1st, you will lose any plots beyond your 2 plot buffer - and possibly right up to your beacon (if you unplot them)
We are having trouble in our town/mall with people losing plots
2 Likes
Yes, you are correct that these cities call themselves by their own names, but youâll also see that they are also part of LA. There are no huge divide between them⌠you can go to all the the cities in the general area and they all blend from one to the next and to those passing through, other than a sign welcoming you to their city, you may not even realize the city name has changed. How many cities do you go through just driving the length of Sunset Blvd? Locals will use the city name they are from to differentiate and let people know the city they are from⌠or because it sounds a lot better to say youâre from Pacific Palisades than LA.
Also, LA is a county and a city. So, saying youâre from LA can mean a lot of things.
In the case of Boundless, and your comparison, I think it proves there does not need to be barriers or empty plots to separate cities. You can be âattached and connectedâ, but still keep your name and identity like a city does with a county. Think of the larger being a countyâŚperhaps?
2 Likes
I thought it was based on the plots and not the beacon it self.
2 Likes
What Kal said, actually. Listen to this guy and not me. I read it as beacon age priority but not factoring in expansion plotting factor. Duhhhhh
1 Like
Maybe I am not explaining myself correctly or people keep getting confused as to the issue at hand. I am not at all bothered by people touching plots or cities being surrounded or flowing from one to another.
Everything you said in your post was completely correct⌠there are two key differences basically in what many people keep brining up in regards to this situation and your post helps to highlight them.
-
In real life we donât always see the signs saying we moved from one town to another yet we did. There is a clear border and clear definition (somewhere) that this side of the street is X and that Y. In Boundless we get warning on screen for this and even if we removed them there is still a clear boundary and it is documented.
-
In real life a town gets to choose. They have a say on what they want to get from the larger city, county, state, etc. They have the rights to decide that name and how they share it and whether they share taxes, services, or whatever. Ignoring all the details or specifics there still is choice. In Boundless we donât unless we move and that isnât fair to those that have already set their build up and are in a city that grew around them or was intentionally annexed.
I think it is pretty clear that adding choice hurts no one and things can be put in place to protect both sides of the coin. It makes no sense to me why people (not trying to direct it to you and mean in general) keep fighting the ability to have choice in who you align your settlement to instead of continuing to enable and support a system that creates conflict among players.
This should have been a very easy thread and suggestion - add choice option please. Answer by community - YUP do it. End of story.
1 Like
I would agree it would mean the first beacon on a planet always wins even if the other players have been more active in expanding? That would seem wrong to me so the way the developers set it up seems best.