Jump to content


Photo

Deed It Or Lose It

Free player protection abuse of fcc

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
12 replies to this topic

#1 Darthryan

Darthryan

    Villager

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,458 posts

Posted 17 November 2012 - 04:37 AM

I think it's time we go back to the simple values of property ownership. If you pay for it, it's yours, no shortcuts, no freebies, nothing.
The enclosure rule is, more often than not, used by people who build 50ql stone walls around an area, and keep it with no risk of being bashed without penalty. This system is supposed to protect new players, but it protects older ones trying to get a TON of free land more often.
You may say that removing this protection will cause new and free players to stop playing. Yes, it's a risk, but before the enclosure rule, it seemed that the ones who stopped playing after having their yard broken into/stolen were the ones that said something like "I will never pay for this crummy game" or "I wish I could buy premium but my parents won't let me". Others that had been broken into decided to go premium and buy a deed so that it couldn't happen again. As Rolf and staff have said, this is not a free game, this is a pay to play game with a free trial. This is not meant to be infinite free play, but meant to give people a taste of the game so that they decide to go premium. Having your free noob land broken into is not an event that forces someone to quit, but it is an event that forces them to make a decision. The decision to quit, keep playing freely and risking it happening again, or paying for the game and actually owning your land.

I propose that... all fences not on deed are fair game to bash into. Houses off deed should, of course, stay safe. Building a house is a perfectly good way for a free player to store things, and is already required for the enclosure rules to take effect.

In-game name: Darth -- “I'm in the empire business.” - Walter White


#2 Protunia

Protunia

    Villager

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,686 posts

Posted 17 November 2012 - 04:44 AM

Yes plox can I haz some??!!

Of course you know they will never want this because it makes more sense......;)

GET TO WORK!!


#3 Ruger

Ruger

    Villager

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,225 posts

Posted 17 November 2012 - 05:31 AM

This is the most logical suggestion proposed so far and I see nothing wrong with it. Good idea as it increases the number of subscribers and coin sales because they will be encouraged to buy prem and a deed or not prem keep an enclosure but know that its not secure at all which will always give them the sense that they might want to prem and get that deed.

Though I do not see them going back to this policy it is a good idea.
[22:57:41] I like my women like I like my coffee... in a plastic cup - [13:15:26] just a minute.. I need to move my keyboard so I cna bash my head agaisnt the desk!

#4 Mattown

Mattown

    Villager

  • Chat Moderator
  • 1,452 posts

Posted 17 November 2012 - 06:04 AM

not worth changing something if it's already been implemented for such a long time.. would screw over tons of people
I'm Kunibert.

#5 Noizhead

Noizhead

    Villager

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 117 posts

Posted 17 November 2012 - 06:08 AM

If Freedom is really supposed to be the cluster where we all play nice and get along with each other, then the actual mechanics of the servers need to reflect that. If the GM-enforced rules say that offdeed bashing is OK except in the case of an enclosure, then either the rule needs to be done away with (because the game does not have any functions for enclosures), or it needs to be coded in.

I am not in favor of an enclosure mechanic going away completely, but I think that it is broken in its current state. Anyone with proficiency in masonry or carpentry can erect fences that can stand for months and months without maintenance. Should they lack the skill, anyone who is willing to suffer the drudgery can make a sweep and touch up their walls every week or two. With nothing in place to restrict the size and number of enclosures, players have taken the ball and ran with it, fencing off enormous tracts of land and hiding behind the letter of the law, while violating its spirit. This needs to stop.

One purpose of the current deed system was to eliminate much of the confusion over land ownership. For those who may not have been around for it, an 11x11 deed used to cost 25 silver to buy, and required 2.5 silver per month for upkeep. The next step up, 21x21, cost 1 gold to buy, and had a 10 silver/month upkeep. Around every deed, however, was an enormous, invisible "area of control" that did nothing except prevent other deeds from setting up nearby. This created vast tracts of land that were one big grey area, when it came to who owned what. I can only imagine the constant squabbling and bickering over land ownership, with the old system.

Now, with GMs declaring that this is a bug, or this isn't a bug, and this is an enclosure but this isn't, and this is protected but this isn't, and you aren't REALLY allowed to do this even though the game lets you, we have introduced even more legal grey areas and loopholes. Great.

By this point, it's become clear that the game mechanics need to be updated again. If Rolf feels that every player should be entitled to a protected spot that they don't have to pay for, then that needs to be coded in. It needs real limits on how big an enclosure can be, and how many a person can have--and I don't see how this can be done without being open to abuse, bringing us right back to square one. If Rolf doesn't feel that people are entitled to a protected enclosure on the Freedom cluster, then stop second-guessing the game developer and throw out the rule.

I'm sick of hearing about this tug-of-war between players and GMs over what's protected and what isn't. Enforce it with game mechanics, not a series of nebulous forum posts.

#6 Cartrip

Cartrip

    Villager

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 549 posts

Posted 17 November 2012 - 07:02 AM

I mostly like the idea, but F2P should somehow be able to get a taste of owning animals and farming too. Maybe go so far as to create a new type of temporary deed-like thing that auto-disbands after 15 RL days from founding, called [Player]'s Worksite, has no settlement form or token, has a preset size of 2 N-S + 2 E-W (for a total of 5x5, 25 tiles), no perimeter and no guards etc. Just something that plops down a little area of mechanics-enforced theft protection. It should have zero other benefits of deeds (including, you cannot respawn there). It would be founded by the F2P player with a one-time use command /worksite which is not accessible to premium players. During or after the 15 days if they decide the game is for them they can prem up and buy a real deed, or make a choice to play without officially protected land.

It's probably got plenty of problems that I'm not thinking about right now. But I think a main problem for F2Ps unable to protect land is not having a way to really get a feeling for most aspects of Wurm before their things get scavenged. And we need a way for them to do this without it being alt-abusable.

Edited by Cartrip, 17 November 2012 - 07:03 AM.

Independence ☼ ELH 48x 34y ☼ MB 47x 34y ☼ TV 50x 33y

#7 Iulianx

Iulianx

    Villager

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,690 posts

Posted 17 November 2012 - 08:37 AM

Sadly, I must agree, the enclosure rule is not effective, it dose more harm than good and it must go, However i would like to point to another thread that might find a solution to not nerf all undeed settlements. http://forum.wurmonl...-building-area/
"You ate a potato chip. You died."

#8 Ayes

Ayes

    Villager

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,664 posts

Posted 17 November 2012 - 08:45 AM

Darthryan, although your suggestion is old news, in that this is the way it worked before the enclosure protection was instituted a year or so ago, I agree that it would be best to return to this status. This encourages people to buy deeds which contribute to game creator income (although Rolf seems little concerned about it from his responses and lack thereof) and makes it plain to players that if they don't have a deed any items outside of their house are free game for others to mess with. Yes, a major part of deed value should be that they *protect* ones items that are upon deed tiles. I have found that once some skills are gained, there is absolutely nothing within one of these *enclosures* that would make me (and many others) spend a minute of my tiime catapulting a wall or fence down to reach them.

=Ayes=
*Happy trails to you, till we meet again* <by Dale Evans & Roy Rogers>

#9 Shiraek

Shiraek

    Villager

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 723 posts

Posted 17 November 2012 - 09:33 AM

-1

Happy for some more limitation on enclosure rule

Against removal of enclosure rule. I lived in an enclosure (with premium) a month before I was committed enough on the game & found a nice enough spot to buy a deed. If it was a case of buy a deed upfront or continually risk losing my stuff, I would not be now writing this message.

And believe me, I am a *paying* customer now.

#10 spellcast

spellcast

    Villager

  • Game Master
  • 3,930 posts

Posted 17 November 2012 - 12:12 PM

deed it or lose it works fine on a server where players have the option to back up desires and demands using force of arms, such as "stop trying to break down my fence or i'll shove this longsword so far up your nose that the pommel will look like a nose ring"... such is not the case on the freedom cluster.

Believe me, we have far less hassle with the rule than we did without it, and various game code solutions are often under discussion, but its simply a matter of priorities for rolf and the rest of the developers on where to spend the time they have and what things to program with it.

In the end there is one way to ensure that we never have to worry about any sort of property disputes ever again, but no one ever wants it added when i suggest it.
(simply make it impossible to build or repair buildings or fences off of a deed on the freedom servers, problem solved) no, its not a real suggestion, but it would solve the problem.

#11 yarnevk

yarnevk

    Villager

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,452 posts

Posted 17 November 2012 - 03:57 PM

I mostly like the idea, but F2P should somehow be able to get a taste of owning animals and farming too.

I agree with fence enclosure rule because of this, it is not sufficient just to protect the house you have to protect their resources too.

The rest about temporary deeds is not needed. When the new players realizes this game is not for them and leaves, the deed disbands for lack of upkeep and the low QL wood shack/fence they built quickly decays, so in effect it is a temporary structure. Since the game is designed to support the casual free player you cannot penalize them for sticking around with a forced 2wk disband, you can only offer game incentives (higher skill, more land) to try to get them to start paying. New players are not capable of high QL masonry structures by design this is only something a premium player can make because of the 20 skill caps. If the new player decides to stay, then their starter deed they can either demolish or expand in place (and they should have ability to expand houses rather than demolish and rebuild)

When I left my shack deed (premium upgrade squatter shack purchased solely for the token resurrection) , the neighbor quickly built an iron fence around it to claim the area while he waits for it to decay, because the land has a source fountain on it he wanted. He did not yet deed or perimeter it. But when I was a squatter shack I would have been PO if he was able to destroy my six tile farm with his deed or perimeter. So I support the enclosure rule because I have used it on both sides of the fence. I built off-deed mines and pens as a premium deed-owner and it also protected me as a free player - without that protection I would have rage quit and the game would have lost a future premium player.

Edited by yarnevk, 17 November 2012 - 04:39 PM.


#12 yarnevk

yarnevk

    Villager

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,452 posts

Posted 17 November 2012 - 04:18 PM

By this point, it's become clear that the game mechanics need to be updated again. If Rolf feels that every player should be entitled to a protected spot that they don't have to pay for, then that needs to be coded in. It needs real limits on how big an enclosure can be, and how many a person can have--and I don't see how this can be done without being open to abuse, bringing us right back to square one. If Rolf doesn't feel that people are entitled to a protected enclosure on the Freedom cluster, then stop second-guessing the game developer and throw out the rule.


And the very simple solution to this on both sides of fence for the f2p shack squatter and p2p free loading masonary skilled land baron, is when you build a fence enclosure you are purchasing a deed if you buy a token (or perimeter if you don't buy a token), at existing prices. Implementing in game mechanic of fence enclosure policy is the replacement for the deed survey form. And if the player declines to pay then there is no fence/house protection and it can be bashed. Now the first 25 tile (or so) should be free to support the free player to try out the game without fear they will rage quit over property destruction, but this has to be accumulated property not per fence enclosure otherwise the land baron would take advantage of it.

These 10k tile land claims with fences would become bashable because the deed upkeep for that is 20s/mo and it cost 2g to buy (200 euro!), and if it is all perimeter with min deed the cost is 50s (50 euro) and 5s/mo. And these grids of 1x1 shack blockers become bashable because they have no fence, or you could deed fence right around them once the survey form rectangle it is blocking is no longer a constraint. And those few land barons that remain with their fences up around their new deeds, should be congratulated as they are funding the server. But if you want to discourage land barons and have more land for others (either way devs make same money), then implement the escalating costs mechanic that is is intended to minimize skyscrapers with multi-story. The longer the fence gets the more each sections time and materials and decay risk.

Now for those who rage against my proposal on this because they hate seeing fences, I proposed that there be a invisible fence that is identical in function to the existing deed/perimeter boundary line, other players will still know they intrude into your property. This means you have no protection from terraforming other than the perimeter notices that you reserve the land just as now, but if you want to protect your perimeter as your area of control you have to build a physical locked fence, but you do not have the token features for decay, guards, etc. Your deed tiles are of course protected and have all the features regardless of physical vs. invisible fence.

Edited by yarnevk, 17 November 2012 - 04:49 PM.


#13 Darkmalice

Darkmalice

    Villager

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 761 posts

Posted 17 November 2012 - 09:36 PM

deed it or lose it works fine on a server where players have the option to back up desires and demands using force of arms, such as "stop trying to break down my fence or i'll shove this longsword so far up your nose that the pommel will look like a nose ring"... such is not the case on the freedom cluster.


Bring back Outlaw status!!
There is one rule; deed it or lose it... Or at least it used to be.