Well need remove plot and retain reserve on plot part and then PLOTWARS will be all good!
to me all the buffer zone thing des is create chaos for already setup cities and put more emphasis on prestige wars now you got to compete with other players to hit 10K first
I do wonder if the developers would consider changing the setting to default to off. I understand players that want the buffer might have to go back and turn it on, but to accommodate the existing settlements is that maybe a small enough request?
I have one beacon where I want the buffer and I would be ok with having to go turn it on.
1 Like
if it was still in testing i would say sure but we may have passed the point of no return on that they would need to go and set all the allready on ones to off and that in its self could create problems with people who just assume its on only to come back(maybe even days later) and find that someone else who logged on before them now has the buffer zone
1 Like
This exactly. Cats already out of the bag. Itâd just create a new set of headaches in this example and maybe more vitriol as a result since people thought they did what they needed to do to get things set up.
Why are you all talking about buffer plots in the wrong thread. Please stop.
Probably true. . oh well.
we where talking about it cuz buffer zones == settlements some people in the thread felt that the buffer zones fixed the issue so no need for a revamp while others like my self where saying that your revamp was still needed.
2 Likes
For transparency sake. I augmented the feature request.
1 Like
I continue to see post from a variety of people that basically say the same thing as above. They just dismiss my and others views that there is a problem. I get we all do that a lot in the forum, but when people keep saying something, it likely means something is up. So instead of just shooting down the idea maybe try to gain more clarity and information on why the person is feeling that way.
So people will understand that the guild update solved nothing for the root of the problem I am talking about:
(Note: This is not to call out any person or city or anything. We are merged by accident [not intentional] and the system makes this happen.)
Yes in the top of the screen shot my Guild town has the name. But you can clearly see that our Guild settlement is part of a larger settlement that we do not want to be part of. Additionally, our prestige is helping another city gain ranking that it should not technically have because we did not approve or are allowed to keep our prestige. Lastly, we have now lost our ability to compete on a city by city prestige level because we are not being given the option to opt-in and choose who our Guild Settlement (same for SOLO settlements) is aligned to.
We have no chance to become capital again because some people intentionally and others accidentally stole our prestige to use for themselves and their gain. And lets be clear - if we wanted to be capital we could, but we donât want that - we just want our own identity and the prestige we worked for. Plus under the system we would be using other peopleâs prestige for capital status that might not have wanted to give it to us. That is unacceptable in our book.
Maybe I need to describe it another way for people to understand and get where I and my guild are coming from:
In our area I placed down 8,500 of my own plots to protect our space using my Oortian account (which I paid for fully alone, and other money to purchase plots). This does not include the countless other plots our guild members placed. We were almost certainly were the first people on Biitula and Circa because we had the first Capital on Phem and were jumping planets within about 2 hours of game release. We were definitely the first Capital on Biitula. We are now basically surrounded and have from the 2nd day of release had people build beside us instead on other parts of the planet and for all of that time had to fight to keep the name of the city we want and the prestige we worked hard for.
If people cannot understand why my guild and others want this feature, then I just donât understand where they are coming from. But, I can certainly see why people would leave this game and never come back because of conflict situations that are forced and created every day.
For the record - we are the illuminoorti. I am speaking for them. @Havok40k is the leader.
1 Like
Enjoy wanted to me part of Iconicsberg. I have nothing to do with the rest.
If anyone wants to not be part unplot, from the settlements you are connect to.
Iconic has only made a 6 plot long connection with âEnjoyâ our sister city.
How about you PEOPLE start acting like adults and stop comparing internet dingdongs.
1 Like
Please donât misconstrue what I was saying. I thought I was pretty clear. This is a game mechanic problem and not a person problem.
I had to show the problem to address the game issue. I am not complaining with the plotting between cities in what it seems you were trying to say.
1 Like
Iâm sorry, but I just want to interject here⌠(Iâm not dismissing your views in any way nor attacking you⌠only debating against this statement)âŚ
Forums, and really any kind of debate, are a 2 way street⌠a 2 sided coin⌠When people say that they donât see a problem, itâs not being offensive or dismissive and they most likely do not lack the understanding of the problem, itâs just the opposing side of your coin. Those particular people just have a different opinion. It doesnât align with your opinion and that is fine.
Both sides of any debate need to be heard, even if people do not see a problem. If they keep quiet, then the perceived problem can get blown out of proportion and the developers can be led to believe that itâs affecting everyone as opposed to a subset of the entire group, as no one has been allowed to submit an opposing view for fear of being told they are being dismissive.
Back to the topic⌠My personal views on this subject is that organic growth for towns is a pretty neat idea⌠and yes it can cause problems for people not wanting to build near others. I originally was in full support of an opt in system, however, Iâm concerned that it can also bring its own swathe of issues to the table if not properly handled.
Now, I do believe the buffer zones currently on live now can work ⌠but not without the beacon sale / transfer functionality. We also need additional options to be able to sub-divide our beacons, so we can section off areas to transfer them to others.
⌠and as I type, Iâm now wondering if a mix of both opt in and buffer zone functionalities would actually work better for everyoneâŚ
Something like thisâŚ
-
Buffer zones exist as they currently are, to protect players wanting to remain separate (defaulted to off with a small tutorial to show players how to turn it on should they wish)âŚ
-
If another player has been granted permission to build within the buffer zone of a settlement, theyâre obviously welcome in that settlement and will become part of it⌠by then placing a beacon down, they auto opt-in to that settlement.
-
If a player has permissions within 2+ adjacent settlements and their beacon plots would touch more then one settlement, they are then given the choice about which settlement they want to join⌠manual opt-in.
This can all obviously still apply the same way if buffer zones are turned off. If you place next to a single existing settlement⌠auto. Place between settlements⌠player choice.
This way, we can still keep the organic growth of settlements if we choose to.
Now this would come with edge casesâŚ
-
What if a players build becomes stranded due to another player removing their build between that player and the main city? If they have enough prestige their build will likely have the same name as the main settlement, but would not actually be a part of it (this happens currently). If they have buffers turned on, it would be less of a problem if the disappearing player had a small build where the buffers would cover it.
-
What happens if a player has a falling out within the settlement they are in and they want to disassociate themselves with the settlement without tearing down their build and moving? Should they be allowed to remove their settlement alignment? Possibly, but only as long as it doesnât disconnect any other player that wants to remain part of that settlement.
There are most likely other edge cases, but these are the only one I can think of off the top of my head right now (in between preparing dinner for my family).
6 Likes
[quote=âXaldafax, post:150, topic:33508, full:trueâ]
I continue to see post from a variety of people that basically say the same thing as above. They just dismiss my and others views that there is a problem. I get we all do that a lot in the forum, but when people keep saying something, it likely means something is up. So instead of just shooting down the idea maybe try to gain more clarity and information on why the person is feeling that way.
So people will understand that the guild update solved nothing for the root of the problem I am talking about:
I can understand what you are saying, what you need to understand is that many of us not so muchres ignoring what you believe, we just see it differently.
I was a member of the debate team in college and in a sociology class had to make a ruling on a topic where two groups debated a idea and make a decision on who gave the best argument. That was hard to do, as with one group I was in total agreement, but unfortunately, they did a horrible job in providing their reason for their viewpoint, so I had to rule against them. A âBecauseâ is not justification, there needs to be a reason for seeing a different side, one that can be argued, in a fair and polite manner and allowing the other side to be seen as having the right to have their side.
That is the problem here, many are stating their reasons, in a informative manner, but othres seem to see it as not seeing what they are saying. They do, they just donât agree with it. Ying and Yang, black and white, up and down, left and right, opposites, to both sides. Both sides believe they are right and sometimes, Both are right, it is just what that person or group sees as more important.
I love olives on a pizza, canât stand the taste of onions on a pizza, it ruins it for me, Iâd throw it in the trash and refuse to eat it, even if I took the onions off Iâd refuse to eat it. He is the same with olives, to him it ruins the pizza. Neither of us is right or wrong, because we see it differently doesnât make my perception as wrong, as I go enjoy your onions on your half of the pizza and he goes enjoy the olives on your half.
Acceptance, we have out different opinions, of perceptions of what is the right way, or what we see as more important than others. It doesnât make others totally wrong, nor does it make us totally wrong, or refusing to see what others believe, just that we see it, believe it differently. And want anyone who disagrees with us to respect our right to see it that way.
uh, I was just saying what i see, i didnât say anyone is wrong in this thread right ?
On that wipe thread I did point out the discussion is unnecessary because it will destroy my house too.
But for this topic, I just saying what I experience. At least I havenât read any article that mention people forcing the presitge war recently. Not even in game either.
You have right to share your opinion, and I totally respect, but I guess its not wrong if I share my opinion too ?
Or the discussion here you mean only allow one voice ? I donât think this is what you mean.
3 Likes
I understand your view and agree in many ways. For me, not everything needs to be a debate from the start. Many things can start as a discussion of understanding the situation and then move into a debate which actually is the person on the other side of the coin influencing the person to their side of the coin. A debate can possibly do this but has more potential to go off the rails.
Instead, I feel the more conducive solution is something called âactive (including reflective/empathic) listeningâ and then moving to influence change. It provides a more conducive environment for both parties and results in more culture change than the traditional âdebate stageâ type process.
If this forum has a greater population of people that are more âdebateâ first and foremost mindsets (maybe you are one like that too) then I can completely understand now why I cross paths with some of the people here and they donât always understand my approach or statements.
For me, it is a matter of style and situation and most importantly how that person about to step in and give their two cents presents their views. I try to do my best and hold myself accountable for mess ups from my side, but also expect and hold people accountable on their own side.
In the case of this subject I have been pretty clear of the views and more importantly the solution I am talking about. In some topics (like the wipe one) those saying there was an issue were NOT clear at all so debate was needed. Critical debate for force the other side to become clear and not blow something out of proportion. In this topic I am VERY clear and have done my homework so âdebatingâ the validity can quickly get stressed especially when it is literally dismissed (with words of that context) as a non issue.
I cannot argue that I love the organic growth of cities but I donât feel the game has all the game play to support it naturally in a way that doesnât cause conflict. Since we did not have buffer zones from the start that cannot be the only solution - you canât force people to have to unplot plots unless you can prove to them that they will still âown the reservationâ. Plus for those areas that need plots to touch we still need the opt-in for âcity control.â
We might be able to make things work with buffers but I think the more easy solution is just provide BOTH options. Now technically I have never asked so without that information I am not sure. Clearly buffers are not easy because the Devs are having issues now. So for me right now it is just easier to still put the opt-in model. I donât see why it would be hard to list all settlements you are touching and allow choice. But, in fairness, I know the settlement code is VERY VERY complex. So honestly we might be up the creek no matter what⌠I wonât know till I can get more technical details from them.
The edge cases are a concern for me as well. But I see in some of those cases people might still be able to create a plot lane to include the other person. Or maybe we list 2 distributions worth of settlements away (not really good idea). Or list all settlements on the world and you pick (maybe too server intense).
1 Like
I do understand that and appreciate the various examples. So I guess my response would have to be then that if this is a debate towards the answer then the proof on why my request is ânot neededâ still has not been strong enough to sway my opinion or any person in my guild.
To date I have not seen any reason that swayed me on why it would make sense that 1 city gets the prestige of another city to raise their ranking when the person that provided that prestige did not want it to go with them. It hurts me and it hurts the other city owner that would have been on top.
To Explain:
City A - 100 prestige
City B - 150 prestige
City C (me) - 100 prestige
A and C merge and are now top city for the planet. C did not want this. C loses out and B loses out. Geez A might not want this. (In the case I am in on Biitula NO ONE wants the merge but because of plots and no space we cannot change it).
So everyone is hurt. For all the debate people - How in a game with no PVP does this conflict and loss of choice make sense? Where is the benefit? How does it help anyone?
People say other things will cause people to quit the game⌠well usually a loss of âchoiceâ and âcontrol of your hard workâ will make people quit as well. And this system clearly doesnât provide choice in a MMO world. So is it worth losing people over a simple feature to allow choice?
If people can really provide good reasons and show the value on why this helps the game then I would change my opinion. But, really try to look at it from my perspective - I want to compete on a city to city level and almost for a whole year cannot because my prestige is being used by another city because the game forces this.
I am fine discussing this with anyone to the ends of the earth to find a solution or find a way to either agree with them or influence them to agree with me. I obviously want everyone happy here and things easy.
In the end of the day the only person that will have a say will be James and his team. Either they will agree or wonât⌠whatever that decision is will create either better options for people or possible more conflict that people donât want in a non-PVP game.
1 Like
I try to allow people to share their views. My point was that the city name issue is not solved with the update. I more just used your post and another example of comments others had made. I wasnât trying to offend or call you out specifically. I apologize.
1 Like
To be honest, Iâm glad that I did my usual thing of playing solo when I first started playing this game. I didnât have a clue about making AOE stuff and didnât care. Didnât have a clue about footfall or prestige and didnât care. When it was added/changedâŚdidnât care. People fighting over naming and stuffâŚyuck, didnât care.
If I had joined a settlement when I was a noob and had to deal with all of thisâŚif anyone had overtaken my little area when I was a noob, it would have freaked me out, upset me greatly, and I would have quit the game. I wouldnât have gotten very far. It was almost like I was in my own little safe tutorial space for a long time, happily doing whatever I wanted to, how I wanted to.
Let the anxiety and stress derive from trying to take down meteors, titans, dungeons, etc. Where itâs optional for those that seek that excitement. It shouldnât come from trying to build, craft, & having to protect your base/home/workshop/shop. 
4 Likes