Of Doughnuts And Doghouses

[FreeTineen 430]

It becomes a problem when people start to do this instead of fence enclosures - not because it will take up too much space (although eventually it no doubt would) but because it encourages others to do the same (monkey see, monkey do) and allows them to avoid paying for land again. It also gives devs the justification to do something like make off deed structures bashable or limited in number which hurts everyone and not just the 96 carpentry cheap skates who can do it or are rubbing their hands in glee at the prospect of selling their maximum sized doughnut house plans to people even cheaper than they are. 

 

Extreme view? For now, perhaps. But you've seen what happened to enclosures when people pushed things too far. 

 

Aye but there's a difference between spamming low stone walls out (which at high skills takes like 40 seconds at most and this (I know houses don't take much longer per section but still) plus you'd have to finish the internal walls to build more then one a day, that's 40 planks per section. That's more of a pain, plus you have to flatten the area. This is more limiting, I really can't see hundreds of conjoined doughnut houses littering the landscape for land grabbing, more effort to maintain and more effort to create. Let's be fair wurm players could show most dictatorships a thing or two about paranoia. 

[Leroy 315]

things like this is what make me hesitate to try 'free' games. most of the points are just a step above making it so all free players are stuck in GV tutorial area.

[Busted 289]

It's not so much the number of these doughnuts, it's what they represent that's the issue. If people circumvent the need to pay for land again by abusing another mechanic it's going to get nerfed which will hurt everyone. 

 

Personally, I'm in favor of bashing in off deed structures (noob crapshacks more so than homesteads of course) but I wouldn't want to see genuine homesteaders punished because a bunch of people exploited doughnut houses to the point where it had to get changed.

 

At best, doughnuts wouldn't be buildable any more. At worst, bashable. That's where it'd end up if this went too far eventually.

[Vroomfondel 1,128]

Also, I have zero interest in Xanadu, and it was stated that this problem will be the most pronounced on the old cluster

 

Wrong again.  You may not be interested in going to Xanadu, but everyone else is.  Some from the old servers will move there, some will have deeds in both places.  But for the most part you can expect new players to use the new server instead of the old ones (more space and all that).  So while you WILL be seeing large donut houses, it will not be as pronounced as you seem to imagine.  In fact, I expect to see more land open on the old servers, especially if the new large server is a success at handling the load of so many players.  Again I tell you, stop being so paranoid.

Edited April 26, 2014 by Vroomfondel

[FreeTineen 430]

True, wurm population density is getting lower and lower, perhaps instead of worrying about them we'll just be releaved when we see a house that someone else actually plays the game.

[Slickshot 1,195]

I have a crazy idea.

 

How about we all stop being selfish meatbags who refuse to communicate with each other.  This way there can be a common thread of respect between neighbors about who would like to use what land, and what for.  Greed is ugly and will ruin this game very quickly.  We are all human after all, and it's human nature to need each other and to support each other.  All this greedy paranoia is total crap and goes against what it means to be human in the first place.

 

I suggest common decency, communication and respect are the keys to salvation here.  Anyone who can't meet these simple standards should be ashamed of themselves.

Edited April 27, 2014 by Slickshot

[Hussars 511]

Honestly, you don't need doughnut houses or enclosures to be "legal" to block land.   Just own two deeds, 20 tiles or less apart, build a longhouse between the deeded tiles and run the fence line on the tile edge of the last deeded tile.

 

You can't bash those fences or the houses, and about the same amount of work to maintain.

 

So tell me again how removing the enclosure rule is going to help against the long term players?

[Leroy 315]

evidently on pristine this was an issue of enclosures, and havent ever been there I don't know for sure but on celebration right by spawn there are sections of land fenced off with a shack or two in it all named the same... glad random unskilled newbies wont be able to do that ever again... wait a sec that one shack is 6 no 7 stories tall and the fencing is 70QL in some places, how did they do that with their lvl20 skill cap???

 

Well I for one am glad that a newbie has the right to bash a section of fence to get to a tree to cut down and good thing is they may reach 20 body strength in the process... and go through several hammers in the same time.

 

Reminds me of that situation where due to speeders in their sports cars all bicycles were reduced in gear ratio.

[Proximo 402]

There's people that don't live on a deed, and this suggestion would heavily damage them.

 

That seems to be the OP's and others point.  They feel people shouldn't live off deeds for a variety of reasons.  Reasons that I find goes against Wurm's "sandbox" game play.

 

-1, emphatically.  And I have to wonder why he would even suggest such a thing. 

[Proximo 402]

I have a crazy idea.

 

How about we all stop being selfish meatbags who refuse to communicate with each other.  This way there can be a common thread of respect between neighbors about who would like to use what land, and what for.  Greed is ugly and will ruin this game very quickly.  We are all human after all, and it's human nature to need each other and to support each other.  All this greedy paranoia is total crap and goes against what it means to be human in the first place.

 

I suggest common decency, communication and respect are the keys to salvation here.  Anyone who can't meet these simple standards should be ashamed of themselves.

 

That's kind of hard to do when one faction of players seems to openly support, and advocate, the griefing of others players.

 

And yes, no matter how you couch it, bashing into a place someone else built and stealing things is griefing.  Especially on PVE servers where there's nothing someone can do to defend from raiders.

[Busted 289]

That's kind of hard to do when one faction of players seems to openly support, and advocate, the griefing of others players.

 

And yes, no matter how you couch it, bashing into a place someone else built and stealing things is griefing.  Especially on PVE servers where there's nothing someone can do to defend from raiders.

 

Well, you can put valuables away in you on deed property to defend yourself from raiders. But you already know that. You're just continuing to complain about something that's already been discussed, decided and shortly to be implemented because you think it's unfair. You and your attitude are now the griefing mindset in this game. You are the griefer now. Anything you do to thwart other peoples legitimate deeding or access to "free" land is an act of griefplay.

 

Circumventing rules by utilising buildings in an unintended manner is an exploit that will probably get nerfed if it's abused.

 

Your faction lost. You can't have your off deed pens nice and secure anymore. If you keep them they may or may not get broken into. That's the world of tomorrow.

 

Deed it or lose it.

[Slickshot 1,195]

That's kind of hard to do when one faction of players seems to openly support, and advocate, the griefing of others players.

 

And yes, no matter how you couch it, bashing into a place someone else built and stealing things is griefing.  Especially on PVE servers where there's nothing someone can do to defend from raiders.

Of course it's griefing.  Not all of us are griefers, however, nor should we live in paranoia over griefing.  Communication is key.

[Slickshot 1,195]

Well, you can put valuables away in you on deed property to defend yourself from raiders. But you already know that. You're just continuing to complain about something that's already been discussed, decided and shortly to be implemented because you think it's unfair. You and your attitude are now the griefing mindset in this game. You are the griefer now. Anything you do to thwart other peoples legitimate deeding or access to "free" land is an act of griefplay.

Shut up.  Attacking other players is a waste of time.

[Hussars 511]

Quick question, in what other PVE only games (or areas within games, or in PVP/PVE games that let you opt out of PVP) do you need to worry about other players being raiders in an area you have enclosed/protected?

There are only a few reasons someone else would want/need to access those areas:

• Access to limited/hard to find resources
• Access to animals (passive for breeding, aggro for skill gains)
• Potential access to items within storage/laying around
• Building on/control of that location
• Travel through the area

The argument that enclosures block access to another area is only one issue, which could be handled in various ways beside removal of the enclosure rules as they exist.

• Set a tile check upon planning of a house that disallows planning/building if there is a deed perimeter within X tiles
• Disallow any off deed construction for everyone
• Disallow building in perimeter for everyone
• Have a rule that at least a 1 tile row must allow unblocked access through the area if there is no other way through within X tiles (on deed, perimeter or enclosure) - failure to do so allows for a GM to open such a hole where they feel it is appropriate

None of these options require the removal of the enclosure rule, just a compromise between those using it to hold large portions of land and those who are trying to get around the map.

If you want to get rid of rules like the enclosure and highway, there needs to be some changes to the deed system as part of it.

• Allow us to deed the area by removing synchronous resize requirements (i.e. one edge expansion)
• Remove the 4 to 1 ratio
• Remove the on-deed animal ratio

Otherwise this appears as a (not so) hidden attempt at pushing the PVE areas onto the path for PVP again. Because if a griefing issue becomes highly visible (several reports already how some can't even wait for another week or so), there will be a demand for players to be able to police themselves more, which in turn leads to more and more PVP elements being introduced.

If that is the long term goal, at least tell us now so we can make informed decisions about if we want to remain with Wurm or not. I'd really rather not see a repeat of the "non-PVP servers open to PVP" crap that pushed me out the last time.

Edited April 27, 2014 by Hussars

[Busted 289]

Shut up.  Attacking other players is a waste of time.

 

Ah yes, the old "I refuse to accept the reality of the situation therefore shut up" response. Bravo.

[Slickshot 1,195]

Ah yes, the old "I refuse to accept the reality of the situation therefore shut up" response. Bravo.

If you'd like to stop derailing the thread, now would be a good time to get back to the topic at hand, thank you.

 

I highly doubt we see very many donut houses to protect land.

[Busted 289]

If you'd like to stop derailing the thread, now would be a good time to get back to the topic at hand, thank you.

 

I highly doubt we see very many donut houses to protect land.

 

Shut up. Oops.

[GorgonKain 355]

Quick question, in what other PVE only games (or areas within games, or in PVP/PVE games that let you opt out of PVP) do you need to worry about other players being raiders in an area you have enclosed/protected?

 

If that is the long term goal, at least tell us now so we can make informed decisions about if we want to remain with Wurm or not. I'd really rather not see a repeat of the "non-PVP servers open to PVP" crap that pushed me out the last time.

 

 

 

You make some very good points Hussar, and some very interesting suggestions!

 

Imo, the problem with removing off-deed building at all, period, is that there are people who live off free land out of necessity rather than to get "closer to mother nature." These include newbies and people who are returning to the game. Defiantly, those people should have a protected place to stay FOR A SHORT TIME. This time can be spent gathering resources, making friends, and potentially looking for a village. The primary thing they should keep in mind (just as much now as if any other off-deed housing gets nerfed) is that they are in no-man's land. There are no systems in place to protect them from anything! While that may be appealing to some people, the rest will eventually move to villages or their own deed. Of course some will rage quit, screaming about "pay-to-win" but that is the nature of the beast. I have already posted that a new prem character is basically given the silver to start their deed for free. 

 

As far as the avoidance of indirect PvP on a PvE server in any sandbox game, it is totally impossible. People are people, and they will continue to clash on what they consider to be correct or theirs. The simple ability to change the landscape can lead to conflicts. Some guy saw a forest to the south of your deed and clear cut it. It is not on your deed, but you enjoyed the view anyway. This can very quickly lead to indirect PvP in the worst way. Politely asking the deed holder about the forest could have been an option, but then you may have an equally cranky deed holder that inspires anger.  

 

Players already have the ability to police themselves, through KOS and reputations. 

 

 

And yes, no matter how you couch it, bashing into a place someone else built and stealing things is griefing.  Especially on PVE servers where there's nothing someone can do to defend from raiders.

 

Nope and nope. You have systems in place to protect yourself. The moment you build a fence on free land, it becomes anyone's fence. Anything you put in that fence is anyone's. Deed it or lose it. A fence a long a coastal road designed to make a little personal trail, that is grief to any traveler on that coast. Bottom line, it is not their place if they do not own the land.

 

 

That seems to be the OP's and others point.  They feel people shouldn't live off deeds for a variety of reasons.  Reasons that I find goes against Wurm's "sandbox" game play.

 

As stated above, living on un-deeded land should always be an option imo. It should just be a dangerous, uncertain option, just like putting a cabin up in the Russian wilderness. I find that land locking areas that you have no legitimate claim to be much more against the spirit of Sandbox game play than consequences fashioned after real life interactions.  

 

Shut up.  Attacking other players is a waste of time.

 

Ah yes, the old "I refuse to accept the reality of the situation therefore shut up" response. Bravo.

 

Please do not degenerate this any further than it already is. Please do not post unless you have relevant data or opinion regarding the original topic. Also, if you can not present your argument in a non-attacking way, please eat an ice cube and try again  

 

-----------

 

Additional note!: When I say "you" I am referring to anyone reading this, including myself. Thank you for understanding my syntax

[Weponsmith 36]

Force PvP on freedom. that is all

[Hussars 511]

Catch is, players have been told for the last few years that you deed it, you own it while it is deeded, if you don't deed it, enclose it to protect it.  If you do neither, don't expect others to leave it alone.

 

That's fine, changing the policy to deed it if you want to protect it is fine, but in the time between these two policies, others have moved into areas now blocking deed expansion.  If the policy had always been you needed to deed it to protect (no enclosure rule enacted), there would not be this "outrage" now.

 

There are outdated, and in most cases silly, limits on how deeds can be placed and expanded.  Coupled with the changes, like on-deed animal ratios, and it makes it difficult for folks to do certain things.  Wurm has always been a game of JoAT's, given enough time.  Now unless you're in a position where you can deed every tile you want to use, you're out of luck.

 

Funny thing is, the number of people supporting the removal of enclosures because they want to use that same space.  Don't they realize, that this will work against them just as much?  because the place most people are up in arms about tend to be on deed perimeters, so you're not going to be able to build there anyway.

 

Everyone else is presenting the image they just wanting to bash crap/raid, because they're bored.

Edited April 27, 2014 by Hussars

[Proximo 402]

Of course it's griefing.  Not all of us are griefers, however, nor should we live in paranoia over griefing.  Communication is key.

 

And I would wager to guess the vast majority of people using the enclosure rule were not "land locking" vast square miles of land all to themselves.

 

Gorgonkain and others seem to be asserting their opinion as fact.  I can't find a quote from any developer stating the expressed purpose of this rule change was that players have no right to use un-deeded land.  In that case we're all guilty.  Who can stand amongst us and say truthfully that we've never mined off deed?  Never chopped tress off deed?  Never hunted off deed? 

 

So it's okay to do those things, and more, but the minute someone builds a fence to protect a project of theirs we draw the line?  Nope sorry, not logical.

 

They're removing the rule because of GM saturation issues, not because Wurm is suddenly not a sandbox and everything outside of deeded space is a worthless decoration.

 

This is just the haves (deed owners) wanting to keep down the have not's.  To that point that the OP even wants HOUSES off-deed to be nerfed and differentiating mechanics to apply?  Seriously??  I don't know if it's contempt or just apathy for players less fortunate than him, either way it's not pretty.

 

Sad that even in a game we can't escape our own selfish nature.

Edited April 27, 2014 by Proximo

[Radni 1,089]

-1 because doughnut houses are a crucial part of defenses on pvp servers

[GorgonKain 355]

-1 because doughnut houses are a crucial part of defenses on pvp servers

 

Yeah, I did not originally consider the PvP implications, this should be a PvE only suggestion for sure. 

 

 

Gorgonkain and others seem to be asserting their opinion as fact.  I can't find a quote from any developer stating the expressed purpose of this rule change was that players have no right to use un-deeded land.  In that case we're all guilty.  Who can stand amongst us and say truthfully that we've never mined off deed?  Never chopped tress off deed?  Never hunted off deed? 

 

As always, my statements are predicated by "IMO" on every instance. I try to write it, but sometimes I forget. These are only my oppinions, if I am stating something based on a GM or Dev quote, I will quote them on it. 

 

Also, I never suggested that un-deeded land should not be used, just that it should not be claimed without deeding it. Using fences and houses is claiming this land for yourself rather than leaving it open for everyone use. Want to mine some gold of deed. Awesome, just when you leave, leave the gold for everyone! Same applies to just about any other resource imaginable. If you want to claim it, use the proper system, I.E. deeding. 

 

 

Sad that even in a game we can't escape our own selfish nature.

 

How is enclosing huge swaths of land without paying for it, blocking off global resources, any less selfish?

[Slickshot 1,195]

And I would wager to guess the vast majority of people using the enclosure rule were not "land locking" vast square miles of land all to themselves.

 

Gorgonkain and others seem to be asserting their opinion as fact.  I can't find a quote from any developer stating the expressed purpose of this rule change was that players have no right to use un-deeded land.  In that case we're all guilty.  Who can stand amongst us and say truthfully that we've never mined off deed?  Never chopped tress off deed?  Never hunted off deed? 

 

So it's okay to do those things, and more, but the minute someone builds a fence to protect a project of theirs we draw the line?  Nope sorry, not logical.

 

They're removing the rule because of GM saturation issues, not because Wurm is suddenly not a sandbox and everything outside of deeded space is a worthless decoration.

 

This is just the haves (deed owners) wanting to keep down the have not's.  To that point that the OP even wants HOUSES off-deed to be nerfed and differentiating mechanics to apply?  Seriously??  I don't know if it's contempt or just apathy for players less fortunate than him, either way it's not pretty.

 

Sad that even in a game we can't escape our own selfish nature.

1.  You're a flaming aggressive player who was already reported recently for attacking Gorgonkain in-game, and now you're trying to attack him in the forums as well.  Let it go while you've already lost once.

2.  Why on Earth did you quote something I said about griefing, and then go on to talk about cutting trees and mining off deed and using plots of lands to build projects?  What the hell does that have to do with bashing down fences, destroying the work of others and being down right nasty and griefing others?

 

Take your time.  Read through the posts on this thread.  Formulate good ideas and share them.  This will save you a lot of frustration and trouble, not to mention others might take you seriously if you have some kind of credibility and reasonable peace about you.

[spellcast 983]

Posting as a player

 

personally i find a large difference between a donut house that will most likely contain a 5x5* or smaller field area that takes at least 560 planks and 28 large nails to build,  and a 30x30 enclosure of easy to build wood fences that takes 240 planks, 240 shafts and 120 small nails to build. (plus 80 planks and 4 nails for a single house)

 

plus, a house has to be built on flat ground, where the aforementioned enclosure does not, so that adds additional limits to it.  I dont really think this suggestion is needed. I also don't see writs being made bash-able on freedom for any reason. 

 

Additionally, players using a donut house to secure a small plot solves the problem the GM team asked rolf to address, namely there being no game mechanic to prevent players from breaking into such an area. enclosures did not prevent this as fences can be bashed. Since the writ cant be broken into, the game mechanics prevent players from breaking into a donut house. IMO, if a player really wants to make a bunch of donut houses close to each other to claim a series of 5x5 or 6x6 fields off deed, more power to them. 

 

As a final thought, if a player STOPS playing, houses go into a fast decay mode, so the land opens back up FAR FAR FAR faster than a series of fences would decay.

 

*(a 7x7 donut house takes 72 carpentry to plan, so is probably about as large as most players will be able to set up easily, there really aren't THAT many people as a % of the wurm population with 70+ carpentry and most of them wont be bothered to go around planning houses for others)