I think you helped build a good system that made it very easy for people to create a city. I hope you and @james can make our call next week so I can get a bit more technical details and understand a few things deeper in the original approach.
Maybe we all were a bit too naive to believe that everyone wanted to be a part of a city. Usually when people settle in an area that means they want to join that area, but sometimes it is actually for other reasons or pure selfish reasons.
Pretty much every system in Boundless is focused on allowing the player to choose their path. In fact, you all changed game dynamics to move everything into an āexchangeā so a player can choose what to do with the rewards they receive from the game - plots, masks, additional characters, etc.
Settlements are really one of the only areas that are now stuck in an old model where the decision of the game is made for them and people are forced to play with others whether they want to or not. People should not be force to leave the area or quit the game because another person or group moves into the area to push them out.
Peopleās work should also not be taken advantage by other people so that person can be Mayor or Viceroy and get coin taxes if that system is ever turned on. A person deserves everything they can get based on the work they put into the game, but the efforts of another person should not be ADDED to that work unless it is APPROVED. Right now your system makes that the default and it fundamentally dis-respects the other personās work by deciding where and who the spoils of that work goes to.
An opt-in system still allows those of like minds and like goals to team up and allows those that do not want to participate in that type of game to still have their own sovereignty of play style. Nothing is really lost and more things are gained. Beyond people feeling like they have a say there is the whole dynamic of actually having to work to get people to join your settlement. A whole new area of game play.
I certainly do not support moving settlement design into the exchange but I think even a super simple option of - join settlement or not should be provided on each beacon. It doesnāt even need to have the additional code I mention of giving options to select neighboring settlements based on plot borders, etc.
I hope we can talk more about this on the call and get into actual technicals so I understand what road blocks might exist and I can maybe help come up with ideasā¦
@marrash Thank you for the defense, but I think player responses like we have seen speak for themselves. I just smiled in this case because of the deep misconceptions and assumptions of me. My approach for this topic has been consistent on what I want for the whole community - choice and fair play. Iām know the developers see beyond the little bit of drama we all have had to the deeper message.
In fairness to @Sulfurblade his message is basically on point even though the tone and approach used isnāt one I would use. Work to be on top if you want to be on top. I support the point when you boil it down to the key message.
Unfortunately, the issue is deeper than that simple approach. I think overall people that are against the change proposed feel that the work of other players to bolster their own efforts is a fine game dynamic. Personally, I feel each person should have to work on things themselves - both in prestige building AND community building. (people can help people on building in their plots obviously that is fine.)
Additionally, each person should be allowed to play they game they want to play within this game instead of being forced to play something they donāt care to. Currently the settlement code does not allow that. It is like forcing people into PVP when they arenāt interested in it. Not all of us have something we need to prove or must play a part of the game just because others feel it is important.
Right now both myself and Sulfer are being forced into a fight that at least one of us has no interest in. If I wanted to try to beat him in fight for Mayor and Viceroy I would be attempting that and actually spending time on it. But that is not a goal I have right now. He seems to have that goal, so I support his work as long as it is HIS work and not the work of OTHER player plot prestige.
A āgoodā player will win the game by their own efforts and not hijacking another personās efforts. Now if the game adds this āopt-inā option then it actually gives that person another way to team up with the other person to maybe achieve a goal they have.
Whether people think it is griefing or not is a matter of personal preference. What we do know it is, though, is not showing respect for another person and their wishes. Many approach the game in a way that ābig and strongā wins the rewards. While that is true in some ways, it isnāt true in others. This āopt-inā feature moves towards respect of each.
The game has many more nuances that the big bully scenario. That mentality only proves the point more that the work of another shouldnāt be taken by the bully for their use. I mean are we really in kindergarten here where someone has to steal another personās lunch money?
@Stretchious I am glad to see this thread has started some discussion among other players outside of the thread. I think they way you said things gives a good color to the problem. The identity you talk about is key and hence why I used the work sovereignty in the topic. Based on your response it appears your guild agrees with the system I proposed in the post! (edit: wanted to make sure it didnāt sound like I was taking credit for the idea. I know we have had many conversations around this and some form or fashion of opt-in had been discussed. I just meant the original post I did here.)
