The fight begun. I think previous warden wanna fight me over the name 
nah. . I named it after the guild. . we briefly had a portal. I was a good day. .or 45 minutes
I meanāt on Niia Zed Ka the fight has begun 
But enough off this off topic. On the other hand itās what @Sulfurblade wanted a PVP over the prestige ranking
ok got it
1o char
This is an amazing example.
I am gobsmacked. The only way to solve something like this is a form of vote.
Thank you
And neither can just pickup and move over a chunk.
Nice, must be quite a fight.
Yeah, from what I gathered they both started out a respectable distance apart, but the area was popular enough that random players filled in the gaps. Not either of their fault really
1 Like
I am not sure this really matters a lot. Other than giving directions where you might have to use more than one location. But if the city is big enough then you have to give more detailed directions anyway.
I am against voting. I understand where you are coming from but voting can be manipulated. and that will also create issues and drama. So someone that has 20% of the prestige wants to leave. The why becomes important. Because the people in the majority have decided to change the theme? The other players have decided to make someone else mayor despite earlier promises to the contrary? If you give people freedom to choose it can be used for good or bad. I would rather give people the choice and take the bad.
OK I will have to agree with you here. The people I am building with probably color my expectations that this is possible. But the forums say I am in for a wild ride if I think this is possible with everyone.
We already have the drama so I would think giving people a choice at least you can say it was a choice to join and a choice to leave. now it is just who has more prestige and no say for anyone in the way.
It is an interesting discussion with no easy answer that is for sure.
1 Like
Everywhere in our world when you walk around a large metroplex you walk through various cities. In Los Angeles you can go to Venice, Santa Monica, Pacific Palisades, Malibu in a few minutes. So I see no reason why this is an issue in this game.
To date no one has really give any solid game breaking reason why having multiple settlements is an issue. Yet we have clearly seen how some people do not want their own settlement and not be forced into a bigger one.
The only reason I can see that a person would be against smaller settlements is that personally they want the easy route to growing their settlement to the biggest they can just because someone else happened to be near them. What really do we lose if there are two mayors or more in near vicinity of each other?
The issue came down ultimately to guild tag versus guild tag. Neither was going to have a whole area defined by the guild they were not in. As for ]I[ all our core members were against it and that is why we tried to solve it diplomatically. Even those that might have not really cared about it agreed that the issue we have around settlements should have been fixed because of the problems it is causing. Ultimately we came to an agreement on a shared city name for both guilds.
The drama exists anyway because people are annexed and have no other option. This actually removes the situation because people can just do what they want.
1 Like
I wonder how a fealty system would work instead of settlements being defined by borders, let it be a choice. Meaning I could choose which settlement I want to be a part of, and lend my chunk of prestige from my beacon to that leader/group. Claiming fealty would need a cooldown to avoid a large prestige person just jumping between settlements and changing names, but it could add an interesting diplomacy element.
1 Like
I completely agree with this.
While I think realism is not really necessary in a game like this, I think some will certainly not hurt it.
My view on this is that it should kind of emulate the feel of real cities in the world. What do I mean by this? It could be something like this (donāt take my numbers as final, I havenāt played the game in a long time): settlement A & B each have 10k prestige, they each have achieved their settlement rank, they merge and have now 20k prestige, they acquire a new rank of settlement, they can now be considered a district comparing to real world standards. The settlement keeps growing and now theyāve gained a total of 200k prestige, they will be equivalent to a city, they now gain the benefit of not merging with another settlement that borders them (unless they want to), along that line, beacons that attach themselves can choose to remain their own or join the city. In case a new beacon decides to attach themselves to the city, but the city doesnāt want that, they can choose to remove them from the city, but they canāt merge someone to the city against their will.
When two cities come into contact. The beacon owners can choose to align with one or the other.
Basically it boils down to using the settlements ranks to decide whether the settlement absorption is automatical or voluntary. Once you hit city status, you canāt not merge people involuntary by aggressive takeover, as well as reject beacons that donāt align to you.
I can expand upon this idea later, but Iām on my phone right now.
So if I am understanding your thread, you want to create a threshold of 200k prestige to allow for merging to be an option? While I will agree there needs to be a minimum, I would suggest lower for people with more natural builds. I would have said more around 20k. I do not think just empty plots should be able to have that option.
Not really, I was suggesting numbers at random. It was just to explain the gist of the idea, it could be lower or higher, thatās something of a topic I want to be discussed further so a general consensus could be reached on whatās the right amount of prestige.
What I meant by that is something more along the lines of using the preexisting naming schemes for settlements to not only determine how much prestige they hold, but also how much power they hold over naming their settlements and determining who joins their settlement or not. With the added ādisadvantageā that they canāt no longer do an aggressive takeover of adjacent beacons, now they need to do a more peaceful approach towards merging adjacent beacons (the beacon owner setting that in his beacon control). If they deem a newly added beacon to the city to not meet their standards (theme, not following guidelines, etc, they can decide to not let them partake, their beacon will not be part of their settlement and just that).
I know this opens up debate about people probably upping their prestige with gleam to retain naming rights over their settlement, thatās why I think discussing the numbers with the community in this case is the best idea. So we donāt have such a big case of lost of identity, while not having a bunch of beacons together with different settlements altogether.
1 Like
I am good with the idea. And maybe the pre-existing prestige levels are a good place to start.
It can if the prestige level is set to high, I think you are right. You need to find the right level where it is not just empty plots but not encourage prestige vaults.
I feel dual opt-in like this is fine once we have figured out a better system to determine Mayor. In any settlement currently the person who spends the most time (alone or with friends) and has the most plots can become Mayor. That doesnāt mean that everyone in that settlement wants that.
This post, though, is not about a full system like that. The reason is it becomes way too complicated for things to be programmed with all these opt-outs, city tiers, exceptions, etc, etc, etc. This post is clearly about solving 1 problem at this point ā allowing people to choose if they want to be in their own settlement or the one the are touching with āall the plotsā in a personās beacon no matter whether natural or full prestige.
There is no aggressive take over when the person that has the beacon they are trying to take over says that they donāt want to join that settlement. At a city to city takeover fight, this could occur, but Iām not trying to get that solved right now. We need to solve one issue first then iterate the design instead of waiting months and months for some super complex system.