@olliepurkiss - I come to you asking again for some great technical transparency so we can solve an issue around Settlement sovereignty and conflicts that have happened in pre-release universe and live currently.
The basic suggestion on how to solve this problem is a very simple opt-in model. I understand it will be a design change on some level and might cause resource issues. I ask you to share what technical details you can so the community can adjust this suggestion if needed.
A single beacon that has reached settlement status follows these steps:
Name the settlement to what the Mayor wants (staying solo settlement)
Game code checks for any other beacons touching its plots for an already established settlement
---- If there is one or more the player is presented with a list of settlements they are touching.
---- The player can then select one of those settlements or instead select to stay in its own settlement.
Basically this creates an opt-in model like you see in any city. The beacon plot size creates the border of your settlement and the player can choose which settlement they want to join or remain their own.
When a mayor creates their settlement they start solo but then can get others to join their settlement and hence grow it. If a Mayor of a neighboring settlement (its plots touches another) is a good Mayor then people will join their settlement. If they want to join another settlement that is touching theirs they can switch to that. Basically it allows people to move their settlements around or chose to stay solo. Two competing Mayors can try to get members in the area to join their settlement over another.
This would solve the complaints people had of being annexed and create a larger meta game play on top of the settlement design by requiring people to negotiate and work to create a big city versus just having plots in the area or an accidental merging happen because some player fills in space between two settlements.
Please provide your thoughts about this. I was going to talk about this with you and @James during my Oortian call but think it is more important to bring everything in front of the community now. We have seen many people complaining about plot problems, etc. We don’t need to lose game players because of this design issue. So instead lets work on solving it now with transparency on the game design and challenges the development team might face.
Basically I see this as another post where we focus on a solution like we did for the recent regen problem. You all did great in helping us understanding the issue and then bringing in a quick win. I just want a win that works for everyone and really gives the individual owner of a plot - choice. Which they deserve.
I also want to be clear that this post is only about “Settlement” issues and not people building right beside others. That should be another post and suggestion.
Also in transparency the guild I am part of had a conflict with another guild and I do not want that stuff to be brought into this. So I ask @Stretchious to please monitor the thread and make sure we stay on topic.
The topic: Solving Settlement Sovereignty as quickly as possible for the community as a whole.
This will change eventually, as they have stated they are looking for a more permanent solution to this long time issue.
I would like to know what are the perks of being and maintaining Mayor other than choosing the name? I’ve always been part of and helping build the cities I was in. Which is only sorta rewarding. I’ve watched different mayors come in and out, and well, it totally sucks and I never felt it was something I was part of anymore. I honestly just want to rip my plots up and leave.
In the other heated thread about this, I just monitored, bit my tongue, I noticed one thing. BOTH sides admitted that neither of them liked this game mechanic. And both felt like the mechanic was unjustly used on them. Because well, no one likes their work taken away. It’s an old mechanic, and we’ve seen many mechanics get changed by the dev’s from our input. This is the hottest most argued one in the game.
@Xaldafax hits the nail on the head here. This is not a thread to settle which guild is right. Curious to if the dev’s still want this type of pvp or still desire this to be a game mechanic. It is now, but will it change?
I know planet viceroy will get tax money but I am unsure of mayor.
I certainly am not trying to have a right / wrong conversation. Just something that makes everyone happy because I don’t think any of us wanted to offend another.
I also want a clear message if this type of settlement mechanic PVP community fight is what the devs want, or if they want to move it to a more meta type game play. All I know is that the current design will drive people away versus something that gives options in many ways.
100% agree. Like I mentioned. When I see a city I helped build, get taken over, I just want to leave. And we shouldn’t have to waste plots with buffers to keep it from happening. But lets let the dev’s tell us if (many solutions available, but main questions are)
Is this mechanic is needed or is going to stay, but will have some options available?
Are they removing it all together , which raising other questions about mayor/vicroy for those in the city?
Would be good that there would be some sort of voting system where players on settlement can participate (with their prestige amount) when it is about renaming settlement and/or merging certain rank of settlements.
That would serve community better and not give absolute power or hijacking by one player when community on settlement might hold more prestige together.
Having voting system like this wouldn’t make capturing impossible but would require building for the existing settlement before it could be done.
Yeah I was going to suggest voting too, for the settlement name anyways. It wouldn’t be perfect but fairer than the current system anyways.
My other thought was I wonder if it would help to have a concept of “districts” within settlements, where districts have their own name and are an opt-in thing. But maybe that would be too complicated.
I’m skeptical of a pure opt-in model because I think it will lead to weird unnatural boundaries and situations where there are like 50 settlements all in one area because nobody wants to join with anyone else.
I do not care for voting. It can be manipulated very easily. And more importantly it still does not allow people to keep their settlement separate if they had wanted to. It still allows another larger settlement to absorb a smaller one. Controlling the name is only part of the issue.
If I have the option when my settlement touches another to decide for myself if I want to join and that settlement mayor also has to decide that I can join everyone gets to control their own settlement. If I decide to opt out later then that is also a choice I can make and leave the settlement. This part of the mechanic might encourage the mayor to listen to people that are port of the settlement.
What is wrong with this? Even in the real world cites are surrounded by suburbs with their own identities and borders. It might be in the interest of the people in the group of 50 settlements to merge, but at least it is a choice and not something that is forced on them.
What happen if I decide to stay alone, but behind my beacon people want to join?
I can troll and block a whole group to join a city…forever (because when the system do a proximity check my beacon mess with it)
Maybe I should have put “settlement” in quotes. 10k prestige is a pretty low bar; with refined materials even a 2 plot shack can be a “settlement”.
And there isn’t any incentive to join a settlement right now, in fact you lose your settlement name so it’s a net loss to join (edit: this is wrong, see Kal El’s response)
You are right if you surround a city with your plots you can keep anyone else from joining. And does this create enough harm to any party? I can surround you now with plots to lock you into your space. As long as I do not build a wall, then nothing can be done (I think).
And which is worse. . we seem to have a lot of complaints about getting absorbed into a larger settlement when you do not want to be. This at least addresses that. I do not want this to sound harsh. Can you think of a better way to control this? If we are going to suggest changes then all the ideas need to be considered.
Sorry had not seen this before I started my other response. There is an incentive to join a larger settlement Footfall is calculated based on the size of the settlement as one factor. So by staying as your own settlement you limit the amount of footfall you can get. If your independence is important to you, opt out. If you want the footfall income boost, opt in. Why is this bad?
Edit: for me. . I have 4 beacons in larger settlements. In 3 cases they are settlements on their own. . I do not care about the names as I was not trying to create a theme or a city or was part of a larger build. They are Kal-El home, Kal-El Beacon at Exodus and I really do not remember the 3rd one.
This covers nearly everything I wanted to say and want to push for. Forced merging is going to reveal some pretty wicked trolls, griefers and thieves. +1000 to the opt-in/toggle merging feature.
I suggest to remove all the names.
People who want a name can put a sign at the entrance of their turf (already the case)
You can even keep the current prestige system.
The city get a random name. (do you care about the name of your region? No, don’t have the choice anyway)
Giving too much power/choice to players is the best way to get drama.
I really hope somethings changes soon as this is already causing divides in the player base. It genuinely makes me anxious to build near anyone as I just don’t want the drama.
Most of the game is player choice. People used bombs to mine and it caused drama. Peoples prices for power coils caused drama. Building locations are causing drama. The real issue is finding a happy solution where the majority can be happy which is a difficult feat. Taking away the name does not take away footfall or the warden title (which for some people is a big deal).
If I come through a portal no matter where it is in a settlement, I get the name of the settlement. It tells me where I am without having signs in front of every portal. I need to name my beacon so I can tell them apart in the places tab. How will I do this if we eliminate names? The beacon name is the settlement name. I am part of a group build it will have a number of ways to get into the settlement, I think we would prefer not to litter it with unnecessary signs.
I do not think choice always creates drama. I think the issue now is not enough choice is creating the drama. If people could have opted out of joining a lot of the current issues would have been avoided. I think the name is a symptom of the problem and not the real problem.
Yes there will be some scenarios where people can attempt that. We have that in real life were people do not want to be part of things. That is handled via various ways like a buy out or legal domain right of way, etc.
Overall though people can go around that person’s plot and still connect. The only way to really stop it would be for someone to build a circle around the other person would then start showing that this is a troll, etc. Then that can be handled via our player code of conduct.
I know there is not an easy answer for any of this and that it isn’t the perfect system. But right now we have something that just doesn’t work and at least this option does move us in a new direction. We can always course correct, etc.
I’m on bored with things like no settlement name or anything that reduces conflict in the game. We don’t need mechanics that force people to fight where they don’t want to. That is PVP games, etc.
Getting the sovreignty of “Pasta Carbonara - City” is less productive than “My guild rules over the world - city”
On top of that “My guild rules over the world” didn’t make it alone.
Some build portals, others roads, and others shops. The name of a settlement should not be used for a City. This will generate too much conflicts.
If you feel this way then the opt in opt out solution still works. . if you do not want to let your city to have a single name don’t opt in. For those that do, opt in. I am part of and will be part of several group builds. We as a group have accepted a name for the city. We want the entire settlement to have a single name when people enter it. Why make it confusing to the people going there that might now see a different name every time they cross a street including a different name for the street. I personally do not want my UI crowded with all the names of each piece of a large city and its warden popping up every few seconds.
I still think the focus on the name is just a symptom of a larger issue, but I can tell we are never going to agree on this.
It’s a shame that this system is causing problems for people. It was designed to represent the world and the buildings within it, and to give identity to the awesome locations that are created. It was not intended to produce friction or upset groups of people who are trying to build amazing things.
Any potential change to this is complicated from both a design and a technical perspective. Rest assured we are taking your feedback on-board and considering options.