Build something interesting and people will visit, build something useful and they will use it, and if you are way out along a road or say you get very little footfall it would seem a higher footfall amount per visitor due to being in a greater city is not a bad thing and being out in the country at the same time is a win win.
Also consider any hotspot today and remember once it was just the starting of a few blocks being place in the wild…
As far as the opt out opt in of Xaldafax’s… BRING IT IN. Yesterday’s drama could have been solved by me toggling the neighbor OUT of the city. The mayor of whatever city should be able to approve and disapprove those connections at any time same as the connecting player does. The Mayor may let in a real bad apple not realizing it until it is too late…
But Yes… Bring this into the game… I have a fear it will be exploited like all the other changes seem to be, but I see the positive side to it too and Yeah I want access to it to mitigate these headaches…
@Goblinounours sadly something like this will always happen… My main point was just to not take it to the public and blast that person… it just looks bad when a new player comes to check out the forums to see how boundless is and all they get is drama every 3-5 posts… Then we get a post asking why the boundless population is low.
you are right yes its hard to not lose your cool 100% agree… but all I ask and I’m sure many would agree is to keep it out of the public eyes… thats all I’m saying
We will just have to disagree here. If all I get is a trickle of footfall then to get a few coin more means nothing. But if I have a build with a decent amount of prestige any players with a market or portal hub probably get more for the connection than I do. If they get 100 times the visitors then the footfall boost is certainly worth more to them than to me. So to say it is a win win is not necessarily true, I lost the right to name my settlement for a few coin. Not worth it in my book. The build something interesting argument is also something I disagree with. If what I have built is a workshop then why do I need visitors anyway?
Yesterdays drama (based on the little I read) could have been avoided if either player had the option to opt out of the settlement. I do think any player should have the option to opt in or out of any settlement. I would not support giving one player the ability to force other players out. I can see too much downside, where a player could form a city be the mayor, allow others to join, some one else becomes the mayor and forces the founding players out of their own settlement. If the mayor decides they want to opt out of their own settlement then fine they should have the same right to do it, but not to force others just because of prestige.
Problem is, with some people, doing things privately leads nowhere, often because these people know the ToC backs them up, and they also knew very very very well what they were doing in the first place.
You end-up having to rely on the devs to clean the mess anyway. That’s how the last plot-war I was into had to be dealt with.
So bringing things to the public is sometimes the best weapon we can have against these people. They don’t want everybody to know how much they rely on d-baggery to get their way.
the game contains prestige (whether you want it to or not) then each block you place is your prestige.
the game presents a list of settlements based on their prestige (whether you want it to or not)
This means whether you play that meta of the game or not the prestige a person/group puts down is ranked and included in that meta part of the game. So if you are forced to play that then you should be able to rank your own efforts on that board to see where you stand and not have it “absorbed” by another entity for their own use.
In other words, a player that must have prestige/ranking should be allowed to see where they sit in that ranking without their efforts being used for another person. Failure to do this (because it is a forced system) is basically creating a slavery type model because my building is now helping something I might not agree to.
Imagine if because my plots touched your build or shop that I would get a percentage of your sales of your shop or your footfall. There is no way you can stop that. Would you allow that your efforts to create what you did go to me or do you want your efforts all to yourself?
If people don’t want to allow settlement opt-out for the reasons it is needed then they need to allow people to opt out of the prestige model or something else like that. Any forced system should give people the inherent right to own their own actions in that system.
(edit: in response to the FF, @Kal-El has the point basically right. The person gets the benefit by using the prestige and that doesn’t mean the other person does. The person is using the other prestige without approval to create a bigger city. Maybe that other person just wanted a small outpost and not to be absorbed. Basically a city is part of 2 sides and decisions to be there… )
This is interesting. I would not support a percentage of sales since that involves getting materials and crafting, but I can imagine where footfall in a settlement was allocated based on the percentage of prestige you contribute to the settlement. If you want to increase what you get for each footfall instance, you would have to balance that against the cost of letting a player whos build was merged into the settlement getting a percentage of all the footfall the settlement created.
At least though the Opt IN to the settlement should have to be approved by BOTH the player and the mayor of the settlement… does that seem a better way? Because someone could build next to you a prestigebomb, Optin, and Congrats Hostile takeover is complete!
The thing that bothers me most though is IF I let someone in my settlement THEY can end that relationship at any time, BUT I have no ability to end the relationship EVER once it is established!
I know people hate politics in their games…but like it or not you cannot hide from the fact that Boundless is FULL of Politics… love it hate it…be right up in it hide from it…still it is there.
opt in/out with few more options. founding beacon, has special status as long as it exists, master by default. any subordinate beacon over 50k can be set to master, any beacon that touches master or subordinate beacon can join, just like guilds, new guy sends a request, master confirms, or auto-accepts. subordinate beacons can be granted privileges by master such as accepting new beacons. if a beacon is disconnected (no plots touching) it remains a part of the group for a cool down period. this way any clump of beacons can be divided into groups or united under leadership of any beacon in the group that qualifies and is accepted as master by others. no one is forced to do anything
I don’t think sweeping things under the rug, hiding things from people, or shooshing people will solve any of these issues. A lot of players…vets and new alike, seek out the forums for solutions and info when they are having problems.
No, it doesn’t look good. Yes, people are tired of seeing these issues brought up over and over. Until a real solution is in place, this will keep happening.
I would be fine with a mutual opt in. While I understand the concerns over some deciding to opt out after joining in the first place everyone in a settlement has the same right even the largest player. If players in a settlement have to work together to maintain the relationships then I think that is good. It also prevents players from a hostile takeover. If a players tries to do this then the other players have an option to opt out. Even the player that might have once been the mayor.
I do agree that no matter what players will do things that will intentionally or not irritate other players. Nothing will ever completely eliminate this in an mmo.
The real problem in the long run is all of us who play and love boundless are gaining plots… we need some new worlds to have the ability to spread out upon. Rental worlds will help, BUT we do truly need some new Public worlds (prefer lower tier and no giant lakes of lava lol)
This is a very strange community. I’ve participated in a few gaming forums and this is easily the most polarizing community. On one hand, I find people are very helpful and go out of their way to be helpful. I’ve never had an unpleasant experience with anyone ingame.
But on the other hand, there are alot of bored people who come onto this forum and complain in the same threads, engage in gossip about certain people who don’t share the same playstyle, and just attempt to bring up the same drama around certain mechanics. Half of these negative threads are simply a rehash of what was discussed weeks or months ago on a previous thread.
See that guild stuff is all part of the issue, i cant control beacon permissions unless i add each person to the beacon itself. thats part of the flaw of the beacon guild settlement system.
I think once a settlement becomes part of a larger one it should be renamed to a district and both should show up…
but then again i think the greater settlment should be opt in. like a 2nd guild book but for the beacons and only on that planet (and not additional chat channels)…
You keep talking about the TRUTH and meanwhile you accuse me of attacking you. I don’t feel like I attacked you anywhere or anyway; please be clear if you accuse me or report me to the devs with the specific issue. Don’t badmouth me…
Oh Please anyone who knows how to look at older posts will see you are not truthfull…
I could spend my time looking and quoting more of your nonsense BUT you know that wont make any difference… it will be flagged and hidden and youll still play innocent.
