Wow very aggressive and quite clever… this game has a definite Game of Thrones political theme like it or not. In the end I am glad everything worked out to inspire your aggressive neighbor to realize that Poking what they perceive you as this “weak lame” neighbor once too often might reveal you are BEAR with Claws that WILL strike when it is needed.
Good For You!!!
All beacons and settlements within a “Great City” for example get the same footfall amount per player at the HIGHEST coin value presently in the game…
Also I saw you mentioning on how most times you are in a settlement you see its name and ONLY see its a member of a larger city by looking in the menus …so Yeah I dont get the beef either.
The ONLY argument that holds any truth against this would be Xaldafax’s desire to NOT provide any benefit (small or large) to the greater settlement’s prestige… He wants HIS work to be HIS work Alone…and while I do not agree with this, I do have to concede that putting yourself in Xaldafax’s “Shoes” his point here is a legitimate one…
A Guild is a legitimate affiliation… it is purely voluntary…it is essentially your OptInOptOut feature already in place.
COULD BE USED TODAY: You are the leader of the settlement OLYMPUS…you create a guild for the city for alignment purposes… use the basic alignment for OLYMPUS and now you have OPTED to be a part of the Olympus settlement. All players still represent their core guilds such as Portal Seekers, Ultima, etc… but their land alignment in that one settlement uses the basic guild alignment to Olympus.
Now if some members of a guild such as Portal Seekers align their land to PS, they should be excluded from the “greater” settlement and penalized footfall, etc… ??? I do not think that is at all fair…
Doesn’t the guild name come up as viceroy for a guild settlement instead of the player name. Or maybe it’s the guild leader even if they don’t have top prestige. Can’t remember and don’t feel like logging on right now to check
This is already done in Axon/Iconicsburg … allows different areas to retain their identity while still being part of the greater settlement
Not sure…still if the guild is created by the founding member of the city its all apples and apples… the city is voluntarily opted in by those guild beacons… No solution is perfect…but if you are creative within the game mechanics we already have very powerful tools within our reach
I think we will continue to have issues where players are not happy with the current game mechanic involving forced merges for whatever reason. Apparently it affects players enough that they bring it up all the time and also involve the developers. If we leave it the way it is, I can see where players could move away from the public planets so they do not have to worry about other players doing this to them. We could see a definite decline in the size of some cities if these players let their builds on public planets regen.
Personally, I do think players should have an option to not be part of any settlement they do not want to be a part of. I disagree that they should not be able to opt in or opt out at any time. If someone wants someone to be part of their settlement and continue to be part of their settlement then they should have to maintain that relationship.
The argument that they also benefit from a footfall increase is not necessary true. If your build is a good distance from a portal hub or mall and you are just connected via a road or just plots, why would you suddenly get any more footfall then you did in the past? If no one is coming to your build before, then being connected by a road or just plots is not going to suddenly create interest from other players to visit your build.
3 Likes
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 
3 Likes
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.
1 Like
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.
1 Like
The point is this:
- 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… )
3 Likes
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.
1 Like
never thought of that! Bad idea!
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.
Maybe I didn’t come off correctly. This was an example to show why the settlement model needs to be fixed in regard to Mayumichi’s comment.
People would not like me to get a percentage of their shop sales just because I put a plot beside them. They want their efforts for themselves.
I wasn’t trying to create a new model just to clarify. I’d be against any of that.
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
1 Like
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.
6 Likes
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.
2 Likes
Don’t use this thread as an excuse to bully! Just a reminder !
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)